This civil Revision is directed against the judgment of learned District Judge, Giridih dated 25.5.2010 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2009 whereby and where under he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Additional Munsif-1, Giridih dated 14.1.2009 in Title Suit No.71 of 2006 and directed him to decide the petition filed on 25.1.2007, 16.4.2007, 1.4.2008 and 30.10.2008 by opposite parties.

2. It appears that O.P. No.2, namely, Satya Prakash Rai has filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 71 of 2006 for declaration of right, title and interest of Narayan Prasad Rai over suit land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Khewat No. 26, Plot No.147 having an area of 48 dismals in Village-Dhendhadih, P.S.-Deori, DistrictGiridih. It is stated that plaintiff/O.P. No.2 is a power of attorney holder of aforesaid Sri Narayan Prasad Rai who executed a registered deed of general power of attorney in .his favour on 29.4.2006: It then appears that during the pendency of suit plaintiff/O.P. No. 2 sold suit property to Sunaina Rai (O.P. No.1) by executing a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2006. It appears that thereafter both the opposite parties jointly filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC on 25.1.2007 for impleading Sunaina Rai in the aforesaid suit. It also appears that O.P. No.1, namely, Sunaina Rai had also filed an application under. Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for substituting her as plaintiff because she purchased the property and become absolute owner during the pendency of the suit.

3. It appears that petitioners, who were defendants in the court below, had contested the aforesaid application and submitted that O.P. No.2, had wrongly sold suit land to his own mother without taking leave of the Court. Thus, the aforesaid transfer is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further submitted that after execution of the sale deed, the aforesaid Narayan Prasad Rai revoked general power of attorney and aforesaid deed of revocation reveals that Satya Prakash Rai (O.P. No.2) disclosed to Narayan Prasad Rai that he had not executed any document in furtherance of the authority given to him by general power of attorney. Accordingly, it is submitted by petitioners/defendants that the sale deed in question is a forged and fabricated document. It is also submitted by petitioners/ defendants that consideration money has not been paid to Narayan Prasad Rai. Thus, on that ground also, the sale deed appears to be void ab initio.

4. It appears that learned Additional Munsif-1, Giridih vide his order dated 14.1.2009 had given a finding. that since the registered power of attorney has been revoked by its executant and recital made therein shows that attorney holder (Satya Prakash Rai) had not executed any deed in furtherance of the power given to him by deed of general power of attorney, the sale deed in favour of O.P. No.1, who happens to be the mother of power of attorney holder, become suspicious. Learned Munsif further held that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any payment of consideration amount to the plaintiff. In view of aforesaid two findings, learned Additional Munsif relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bibi Jubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hasan Saheb, (2004)1 SCC 191 [: 2004(1) JLJR (SC) 59] had come to the conclusion that alienation of property is not' bona fide, consequently he dismissed the applications filed by opposite parties. It is relevant to mention here that learned Munsif had admitted in the aforesaid order that as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, AIR 2005 SC 2209 [(2005)11 SCC 403] subsequent purchaser can be impleaded as party to the suit, but without distinguishing that case, he passed the aforesaid order dismissing applications of opposite parties. It then appears that by the same order, he also dismissed the suit• because it was filed by power of attorney holder of Narayan Prasad Rai and the said power o