Lawful possession of immovable property in a situation where ownership is yet to be established confers good title on the possessor as against the whole world except the true legal owner.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. This Second Appeal was filed by the defendant, who had lost in both the courts below. The present appellants are legal heirs of the deceased appellant-defendant, who expired during the pendency of the Second Appeal. At the time of admission of this Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this court:

Whether the plaintiff's husband had acquired any right, title over the land by virtue of unregistered deed of sale concerning immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 ?

In view of Misc. Case No. 169 of 2001 filed by the Respondents in the appeal and after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and further on due consideration of the questions involved in the appeal, the court is of the view that the following question of law should be framed as an additional question, requiring the court's determination -

Whether the plaintiff's possessory right, title can be interfered with by the defendant merely on the basis of the Sale Deed Ext. Ka executed by the attorney on the basis of an unregistered power of attorney (Ext. Ga).

2. The pleaded case of the parties may briefly be noticed at the outset:

The respondent in the Appeal, i.e., the plaintiff in the suit is the wife of one Haladhar Sarma. In the suit filed, the plaintiff claimed that her husband is the sole owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha-covered by Dag No. 32(old) 153(new) of Patta No. 93(old) 54(new) of Village Hatigarh under Beltola Mouza within the City of Guwahati. According to the plaintiff, out of the aforesaid plot of land of 1 Bigha, 2Ks 10 Lswas sold by her husband to one Joginder Singh by Ext.2 in the year 1970-71. It is the further case of the plaintiff that subsequently Joginder. Singh by another sale deed (Ext.1) re-conveyed the said property to the husband of the plaintiff and thereafter left Guwahati to settle down in Delhi. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiff that her husband had renounced the world and had become Sage/Monk and that though she was in possession of the suit land measuring 2 Ks 10 Ls, the defendant had claimed the suit land to be his own and also threatened to evict her from the said land. In the plaint filed, it was further stated that the defendant had instituted a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Executive Magistrate and in course of the said proceeding had produced a power of attorney executed by Joginder Singh in favour of one Amrik Singh authorizing the said person to sell the suit land. In the said proceeding, the defendant had also produced a sale deed executed by the aforesaid Amrik Singh in favour of the defendant relating to the suit land. As the title of the plaintiff had become clouded, the suit out of which this Appeal has arisen was filed praying for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land ; for confirmation of possession ; for permanent injunction and also for a declaration that the power of attorney executed in favour of Amrik Singh was void and inoperative in law. In so far as the said power of attorney is concerned, it was the specific case of the plaintiff that Joginder Singh having died earlier than the date of execution of the power of attorney, the said document was not a genuine document.

3. The deceased defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement. Apart from denying the statements made in the plaint filed, it was the specific case of the defendant that the suit land was purchased by him on 26.6.1974 by a registered sale deed (Ext. Ka), which was executed by Amrik Singh, the attorney of the landowner Joginder Singh. It was also the case of the defendant that he has been in possession of the suit land since the date of its purchase.

4. On the rival pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed as many as 5 issued for trial which may be conveniently set out herein below:

1. Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

2. Whether the suit is