The plaintiffs failed to prove the authenticity of the Power of Attorney and their marital status, leading to the dismissal of their suit.

Judgment :

1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 284/95, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) to the effect that Late Sh. Fateh Singh was having three wives including plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi and other two wives namely Smt. Chandrakala Devi and Smt. Madan Kanwar. The plaintiff No.1-Smt Dhapa Devi is having three sons namely Mohan Singh, Ratan Singh and Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh from wedlock of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh were having separate agricultural land and Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh being minor was living with his mother Smt. Dhapa Devi and father Late Sh. Fateh Singh. So, land admeasuring 63 bigha 7 biswa of Khasra No.438 situated in village Sankotda was recorded in the khadedari of plaintiffs and their names were entered through mutation on 05.10.1977. The plaintiffs were in possession of the said land. Late Sh. Fateh Singh was not happy with the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi and under the pressure of his other sons, he left the plaintiff No.1. Later on, plaintiffs came to know that Late Sh. Fateh Singh prepared forged Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs and on the basis of said forged Power of Attorney of plaintiffs, registered sale deed was executed on 27.08.77. The plaintiffs prayed that the Power of Attorney as well as sale deed was executed on account of forged documents, so it should be declared as null and void.

3. The defendants replied the averments of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi is not wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh and he had already given 15 bigha each to Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh. The present suit is not maintainable on account of Section 7 of the Family Court Act. So, plaint should be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1- D;k eq[r;kjukek vke fnukad 18-06-77 tkyh vkSj QthZ gS o oknhx.k mlls ikcUn ugha gS\

1,& D;k okfnuh [kljk ua0 438 esa ls 63 ch?kk 7 fcLok Hkwfe dh Lokeh gS\

2- D;k eq0 /kkik okfnuh o eq0 /kkik Mk;tokyh nks vyx vyx O;fDr gSa vkSj D;k oknh la0&nks dk uke vej flag ugha gSa cfYd vej flag okLro esa eq0 /kkik Mk;tokyh dk iq= gS\

3- D;k okfnuh eq0 /kkik izfroknh la0&,d dh oS| ifRu gS vkSj oknh la0& nks izfroknh la0&,d dk oS| iq= gS\

4- D;k okni= ds iSjk la0&12 esa of.kZr csukesa oknhx.k dh vksj ls fu"ikfnr fd, x,A vxj ,slk ugha gS rks D;k os csukesa csvlj gS fd izfroknh la0&,d dks mu csukeksa dks djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\

4,& D;k oknxzLr lEifRr ij oknh dk dCtk ugha gS] dCtk dh izkFkZuk fd, fcuk o dksVZQhl fn;s fcuk oknh dk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

4ch& vk;k en ua0& 25 tokcnkok esa of.kZr rF; lgh gS o okfnuh dks /kkjk&7 QSeyh dksVZ ,DV ds vuqlkj vnkyr gktk dks nkok lquus dk Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha jgrk gS o okn xSjdkuwuh gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS\

5- vuqrks"k\

6- vk;k tokcnkok dh en la0& 24 dk nkok ij D;k vlj gS\

5. To prove its case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1-Dhapa Devi, PW2-Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh, PW3-Prabhu S/o Gyarsya, PW4-Prabhu S/o Jagannath, PW5-Jagdish, PW6-Ratan Singh and PW7-Mohan Singh. To prove its case, defendant examined himself as DW1-Fateh Singh, DW2-Jassu Khan and DW3-Pratap Singh.

6. After hearing the parties the trial court vide its order dated 27.05.97 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial court had committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Late Sh. Fateh Singh had sold the disputed land by way of Power of Attorney dated 18.06.77. It was proved that sale deed was executed