JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2009 and 8.10.2009 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.38/735 of 2008/2006.

2. The suit was filed for declaration that the registered sale deed nos.6476 and 6477 dated 21.2.2004 executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit property by virtue of the Power of Attorney No.806 dated 15.09.2001 are fraudulent, inoperative, void and not binding on the plaintiff. She also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. The suit was filed in respect of the property appertaining to Plot No.63, Khata No.105 under mouza-Baramunda in the district of Khurda. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Bhima Charan Swain vide RSD No.3689 dated 12.4.1982 followed by delivery of possession. After purchase, the plaintiff constructed a temporary shed over the suit land and rented it out to different tenants. In the year 2001, the husband of the plaintiff fell ill and could not look after the family. Thus, all her sons decided to construct a permanent structure over the suit land. Out of three sons of the plaintiff, the elder two did not agree to take up the responsibility. Her husband being ill was confined to bed and was unable to shoulder any responsibility. Defendant No.3, the youngest son of the plaintiff, agreed to look after the development of the suit land. Accordingly, a registered Power of Attorney bearing No.806 dated 15.09.2001 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.3 for development of the suit property. The contents of the Power of Attorney was not read over or explained to the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not know about the terms and recitals of the same. It was further contended in the plaint that defendant No.3 had obtained the Power of Attorney by misrepresentation. It is only on 15.10.2006, when defendant Nos.1 and 2 tried to evict the tenants from the house constructed over the suit land, the plaintiff came to know that the Power of Attorney was obtained fraudulently by the defendant No.3 authorizing him to sell the suit property. By virtue of such authorization, the defendant No.3 sold away the suit land to defendant Nos.1 and 2. The sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by defendant No.3 were nominal. No consideration money was paid to the vendor by virtue of such sale and no delivery of possession was given to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to execution of such sale deeds. The plaintiff also challenged that the sale deeds were undervalued. She claimed to be in possession over the suit property. As her possession over the suit land was threatened by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, she prayed for the aforesaid relief.

4. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement jointly refuting the averments made in the plaint. They challenged the maintainability of the suit so also the cause of action for filing the same. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. According to them, the plaintiff, who was the owner of the suit property, executed registered Power of Attorney No. 806 dated 15.9.2001 in favour of defendant No.3 authorizing him to negotiate and sell the suit property. Accordingly, defendant No. 3 sold the suit property in their favour for valuable consideration followed by delivery of possession. The consideration money was paid to defendant No.3 through different cheques, which were encashed by defendant No.3. Thus, the sale deeds in question were valid, operative and binding on the plaintiff as well as defendant No.3. Pursuant to such sale, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 mutated the property in their name and the R.O.Rs. were corrected accordingly by renumbering the plot numbers as 813/1362 and 813/1361. They also contended that they were paying the rent and holding tax in respect of