The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a sale-deed and the authority of the person executing the deed are crucial in determining the transfer of property rights.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 5. 3. 1982 by which the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 13. 12. 1976 and dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that Dalpat Raj and Ravindra Singh were the alleged owners of the house in dispute situated in the Village dhoondhla. The plaintiff claimed that the said house was purchased by him from said Dalpat Raj and Ravindra Singh (defendant nos. 10 and 11)by registered sale-deed dated 26. 3. 1968 after paying consideration of rs. 4000/ -. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat (defendant no. 1) and the villagers of the Gram Panchayat, Dhoondhla threatened to dis-possess the plaintiff on 7. 4. 1968 but they failed in dis-possessing the plaintiff but on 8. 6. 1968, defendant no. 2 in the capacity of Sarpanch as well as the villagers, encroached upon the house. Therefore, the plaintiff served a notice upon the Gram Panchayat and the Sarpanch under section 79 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and thereafter filed the suit for possession after seeking permission under Order 1 Rule 8 c. P. C. The defendants submitted written statement and pleaded that the house in dispute is a public property and the Gram Panchayat as well as the villagers are in possession of the said house since last 20 years. It is alleged that the plaintiff was never put in possession by any body including by the vendors (defendant nos. 10 and 11 ). Several other pleas were taken by the defendants, but they are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal.

( 3 ) THE trial court held that the suit property was sold by defendant nos. 10 and 11 to the plaintiff by registered sale-deed. The trial court also considered the fact that though sale-deed purported to have been executed through power of attorney but since vendors defendant nos. 10 and 11 also signed the sale-deed dated 26. 3. 1968, therefore, the saledeed is executed by the real owners of the property (defendant nos. 10 and 11- Dalpat Raj and Ravindra Singh ). The trial court, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the property in dispute by judgment and decree dated 13. 12. 1976.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 13. 12. 1976, the defendants preferred regular first appeal which was allowed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 5. 3. 1982. The first appellate court held that power of attorney holder had no authority to execute the sale-deed and he had only authority to present already executed sale-deed by the vendors before the Sub-Registrar for registration. In view of the above, the saledeed dated 26. 3. 1968 is not legal and has not passed on the title of the property to the plaintiff. In view of the above findings, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendants and set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 13. 12. 1976 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal.

( 5 ) THE second appeal was admitted by this Court on 19. 7. 1982 while framing the following substantial question of law:-Whether the appellate court was right in holding that the document Ex. 3 was void and was not registered in accordance with law.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the sale-deed Ex. 3 has been signed by the owners of the property and the owners of the property admitted their signatures on the sale-deed ex. 3. The sale-deed Ex. 3 is the registered document, therefore, the plaintiff acquired the title to the property by sale-deed Ex. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant even if there is any defect in registration of the document then that defect is an irregularity. So far as the language used in the sale-deed, if found to be defective, then that defect cannot be fatal becau