LODHA, J.—This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.

2. The plaintiff-respondents case as set out in the plaint is that the premises in question which consist of a shop and a Medi, situated in village Deoli were rented out to the defendant Chiranjilal (who is now dead and represented by his legal representatives Babulal and others - appellants) by one Gadmal receiver of the firm Daulatram Chandanmal on Kartik Sudi 1, S. 1998 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/4/-. It is further alleged that the partition commissioner of Ladhas estate, appointed by the Calcutta High Court sold the premises in question to Chhajulal Banshi Lal by a registered sale deed dated 6-2 1947 and Chiranjilal attorned in favour of the vendees Chhajulal Banshilal. The plaintiff goes on to state that since Chiranjilal did not pay rent to Chhajulal Banshi Lal, the latter filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Kekri for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 172/10/- and the same was decreed on 9 8 1955. The prayer for ejectment was, however, disallowed on the ground that the notice of termination of tenancy dated 25-7-1949 served on the tenant was not legal and valid. It is further alleged that the heirs of Chhajulal, viz. Smt. Vidhyadevi and Banshilal sold the property in question through their attorney Kapurchand in favour of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 21-9 1962. It may be stated at this stage that Smt. Vidhyadevi and Banshilal had also filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against Chiranjilal but the same was dismissed in default under O. 9, r. 8 C.P.C. and the application for restoration was also dismissed. The present suit has thus been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of derivative title.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant on a number of grounds. It was urged that the defendant had become owner of the property by adverse possession. The title of the plaintiff was challenged on the ground that since the power of attorney executed by Smt. Vidhyadevi and Banshilal in favour of Kapurchand was not valid the sale deed executed by Kapurchand in favour of the plaintiff conferred no valid title on the plaintiff. It was also contended that there was no attornment in favour of the plaintiff and no rent had ever been paid to the plaintiff by Chhajulal or for the matter of that to Gadmal.

4. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit and the judgment and decree of the trial court were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Tonk on appeal by the defendants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in the first instance that since the power of attorney in favour of Kapurchand had not been registered the sale deed executed by Kapurchand is of no avail, In support of his contention he has relied upon Jugraj Singh vs. Jaswant Singh (l). At this stage it may be mentioned that anticipating this objection learned counsel for the respondents has made an application under O. 41, r. 27 C.P.C. praying that a fresh power of attorney executed by Smt Vidhyadevi and Banshilal and duly registered on 26-9-1973 wherein the executants have ratified the act of their Attorney Kapurchand,. may be taken on record and the defect, if any, in the original power of attorney may be taken to have been remedied. He has argued in the alternative that since Kapurchand was himself the executant of the sale deed, sec. 32(a) of the Indian Registration Act would apply, and not sec. 32(c). From this stand point it is contended that sec. 33 has no application and the power of attorney is in order.

6. In Jugraj Singh vs. Jaswant Singh (l) also while the suit was pending and because of the challenge to the power of attorney on the ground that it had not been properly authenticated under the law, a fresh power of attorney was executed by the owner of the property in favour of the agent as required by law. The second power of attorney was held to be valid and effective both under sec. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and sec. 33 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document