Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and has cancelled the sale-deed dated 6.5.2003 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 and has restrained the defendants from alienating the disputed land by way of permanent injunction. For the sake of brevity, the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit, shall be referred to as `the appellants and the original plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 8 in the suit, shall be referred to as `the respondents.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 to 8 are the legal heirs of Late Milap Chand Jain, Mr. Milap Chand Jain was having an agriculture land, bearing Khasra No.296/2/2, measuring six bighas and eight biswas, situated at village Mohammedpura, Tehsil Tonk. Mr. Jain executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant No.1 on or about 28.5.1997 in regard to the aforementioned land. Admittedly, Mr. Jain died on 21.10.1997. However, despite his death on 21.10.1997, the appellant No.1 executed a sale-deed in favour of the appellant No.2, who happens to be his wife on 6.5.2003. Since the respondents were aggrieved by the said sale-deed, they filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed and prayed for permanent injunction against the appellants.

(3). The appellants filed their written statements and denied all the averments made in the plaint. According to the appellants, Mr. Jain had executed the power of attorney on 28.5.1997. The appellant further claims that on 28.5.1997 Mr. Jain had also entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the disputed land. He had also received a sale consideration of Rs.1 lac from the appellant No.1. Since he had received a sale consideration, the possession of the land was also given to the appellant No.1. the appellants further claimed that they were not aware of Mr. Jains death. It was further pleaded that on 6.5.2003 the appellant No.1 had executed the sale-deed in favour of the appellant No.2 in a bona fide manner. Therefore, the sale by the appellant Nos.1 and 2 was legal and valid.

(4). Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. In order to support their case, the respondents examined Mr. Ashok Kumar and filed three documents. On the other hand, the appellants examined four witnesses and filed agreement to sell as a document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2006, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the appellants before this Court.

(5). Since the appeal has already been admitted and since the arguments have been heard extensively, upon the consent of both the parties, this case is finally decided by this judgment.

(6). Mr. Praveen Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, has strenuously argued that the appellant No.1 was the power of attorney holder for Mr. Jain. Therefore, under the said power, he could validly sell the land to the appellant No.2. Hence, the sale was a bona fide one. Moreover, the land was already transferred by Mr. Jain through an agreement to sell dated 28.5.1997 to the appellant No.1. Therefore, the appellant No.1 was an absolutely owner of the said land. Hence, he has a right to sell the land to his wife, the appellant No.2.

(7). On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the title of he land is not transferred through an agreement to sell. Therefore, through the agreement to sell, the appellant No.1 did not become the absolute owner of the land. Moreover, according to the sale deed dated 6.5.2003, the appellant No.1 has sold the land to the appellant No.2 not in his capacity as the owner of the land, but in his capacity as a power of attorney holder of Mr. Jain. Furthermore, since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document