The central legal point established in the judgment is that when a document is challenged as forged, it is not necessary to examine the witnesses named in the document to establish the forgery, especially when their involvement in the forgery is alleged.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No. 1345 of 2011.

2. The appellants as the plaintiff had filed the suit praying for following reliefs:-

(i) let a decree be passed declaring the deed of General Power of Attorney No. 1081021769 dated 03.09.2010 elaborately described in Schedule-‘B’ below, the R.S.D. No. 1081026361 dated 27.10.2010 elaborately described in Schedule – ‘C’ below and the R.S.D. No. 1081027452 dated 09.09.2011 elaborately described in the Schedule –‘D’ below are void deeds and the same have no legal entity in eye of law.

(ii) let a decree be passed permanently injuncting the defendant from lying any claim over the suit Schedule –‘A’ lands for all times to come in future, from interfering and from causing any disturbances on the rights and titles of the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit Schedule –‘A’ lands; in future and from alienating transferring and selling away the Schedule –‘A’ lands to others during the pendency of the suit.

(ii) let a decree be passed for costs of the suit and the costs which the plaintiffs would incure till the final disposal of the suit.

(iv) let a decree be passed for any other reliefs which the plaintiffs are otherwise entitled to and the reliefs which your honour may deem fit and proper to be given in the suit.

The suit having been dismissed exparte against the respondents-defendant, the same is now under challenge.

3. The plaintiffs case is that one Sabitri Dash who happens to their mother was the owner and recorded tenant of the land under consolidation Khata no. 303, plot no. 481 measuring Ac. 245 decimals in mouza Banaguari and this land, she had got from her mother, Nishamani Dibya under registered gift deed dated 29.09.1961. It is stated that Sabitri with the assistance of her sons (plaintiffs) and one Dwijabar Mohanty was cultivating the suit land. After death of Dwijabara, his son Basanta Kumar Mohanty took up the cultivation over the suit land. Sabitri died on 09.08.1990. So these plaintiffs being her sons remained in cultivating possession of the suit land by growing paddy and other seasonal crops. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is a stranger to their family. It is alleged that on 03.09.2010 said defendant no. 1 has brought into existence a deed Power of Attorney showing it to have been so executed by Sabitri Dash in his favour, though Sabitri had by then left this mortal world, having died much prior to it i.e. on 09.08.1990. It is also their case that the Power of Attorney dated 03.09.2010 has been created by way of impersonation by making another old lady to stand and put her LTIs etc. being put for the purpose. The person whose photograph finds place in the said deed has been made to stand in place of Sabitri Dash and accordingly everything have been stage managed. That old lady is not known to the plaintiffs. This defendant no. 1 on the basis of said forged Power of Attorney has proceeded to execute a registered sale-deed in favour of defendant no. 2 on 27.10.2010 for a huge consideration and that defendant no. 2 in turn has further executed another registered sale-deed on 09.11.2010 in favour of defendant no. 3 showing the property to have been so sold for a consideration of Rs. 40,42,500/-. All these documents are put to serious challenge as fake forged and fabricated and it is stated that defendant no. 1 is the chief architect of the same. Pleading the above facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid.

4. The defendant no. 1 appeared to contest on being noticed in the suit. However, after filing the written statement by denying the plaint averments, he remained absent and did not participate in the hearing of the suit and as such was set exparte. The other two defendants did not neither file any written statement nor contested the suit.

5. During exparte hearing, the plaintiff No. 2 examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved the following document:-

Vot