IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of a sale deed hinges on the authenticity of the signatures, and a power of attorney must be executed with clear authority over the specific property involved.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Regular Second Appeal (RSA) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellant, namely, Smt. Mandira Das, impugning the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2013 passed in Title Appeal No. 20/2012 by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat, whereby the said first appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2012 passed by learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 99/2006 was affirmed.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant second appeal, in brief, are as follows:

i. That the respondent No. 1, Shri Ajit Ghosh had filed Title Suit against the present appellant and four others, namely, Haradhan Dhar, Anil Ghosh, Amrit Ghosh, Tari Ghosh, and Dulali Rani Ghosh, as pro-forma defendants.

ii. The pro-forma defendants are arrayed in this second appeal as pro-forma respondents.

iii. The aforesaid suit was filed by Shri Ajit Ghosh before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat and same was registered as Title Suit No. 99/2006.

iv. The said suit was filed for declaring that the sale deed No. 608 dated 20.04.2006 is fraudulent, illegal, void and inoperative and prayer was made for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed.

v. The prayer was also made in the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant No. 1, i.e., the present appellant, her men, agents, employees etc. from entering into the suit premises.

4. It was averred in the plaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein, that his father, late Amulaya Ghosh, had purchased ten lochas of land in Jorhat town, which is described in detail in Schedule-A to the plaint.

5. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that the father of the respondent No.1 was carrying on business in two rooms and later on, his father, late Amulya Ghosh left for Siliguri in West Bengal, where he settled with his family till his death. However, in his absence the property was looked after by one Haradhan Dhar (Respondent No. 2 in this appeal).

6. The respondent No. 1 Ajit Ghosh has also pleaded in his plaint that Haradhan Dhar has been appointed as his lawful attorney by executing a General Power of Attorney on 18.03.2002 to look after the properties of the respondent No. 1 at Jorhat.

7. It is also pleaded in the plaint, that on 10.05.2006, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff came to know that the appellant/defendant No.1 had applied for transfer of holding No. 139 of Jorhat Town, New Hill Road in her name on the ground that she had allegedly purchased the said property from the respondent No. 1/plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed No. 608 dated 20.04.2006.

8. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has further pleaded that the said sale deed was fraudulent and has not been executed by him and accordingly, he prayed for cancellation of said sale deed along with other reliefs.

9. The present appellant/defendant No.1 contested the Title Suit No. 99/2006, wherein he took the plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as according to him the Haradhan Dhar had filed the suit without impleading the Ajit Ghosh as defendant.

10. The present appellant/defendant No.1 also took plea that the power of attorney in the name of Haradhan Dhar by Ajit Ghosh is concocted power of attorney as it was executed in the year 2002 whereas the name of the Ajit Ghosh was mutated in records of right in the year 2006 only.

11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat had framed eight numbers of issues as follows:

i. Issue No.1- whether there is a cause of action for the suit;

ii. Issue No.2- whether the suit is properly valued;

iii. Issue No.3- whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties;

iv. Issue No.4- whether the plaintiff has any right, title to appoint the power of attorney holder;

v. Issue No.5- whether the sale date und