JUDGMENT

B.K. PATEL, J. : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2010 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Bhubaneswar dismissing R.F.A. No.19/22 of 2006/2003 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No.258 of 1990 by which the suit was decreed. Appellant was defendant No.1, respondent No.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.4 was defendant No.2 in the suit. Respondent No.5 was impleaded in this appeal on consent of the parties on the basis of claim as a lis pendent purchaser.

2.In the result, plaintiffs sought for the following reliefs :

“(a)That their joint title to the suit land described in Schedules A & B of the plaint be declared and their exclusive possession over the same be confirmed.

(b)Alternatively if it be held that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 covering the suit land to the extent of share of Defendant No.2 therein is valid as the suit land is the undivided homestead of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and as defendant No.1 being a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs is not be entitled to joint possession of the suit land with plaintiffs, defendant No.1 be permanently restrained not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land described in Schedule A & B shown in red colour in the sketch map marked as A B attached to the plaint.

(c)It be declared that the sale deeds dtd.28.6.89 and 30.6.89 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit land (90 dec) are invalid, in operative, and not binding on the plaintiffs and those have been brought into existence as a result of fraud and collusion practised by Defendant No.1 and 2.

(d)Cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

(e)Plaintiffs be given such relief/reliefs which they are deemed entitled to by the Court.”

3.While admitting the second appeal by order dated 22.7.2010 the following substantial questions of law were formulated for adjudication.

“(a)Whether, when further relief of declaring the registered general power of attorney Ext.1 void was very much available to the plaintiffs and/or whether without nullifying the registered general power of attorney Ext.1, the suit for declaration to nullify the sale deeds executed and registered by the general power of attorney defendant No.2 will be maintainable ignoring the bar under Section 31 and provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act ?

(b)Whether the defendant No.1 who is not a party to the general power of attorney Ext.1 and when the said general of attorney Ext.1 is proved by producing a true attested copies of the certified copy thereof by the plaintiffs themselves, was bound to prove the original GPA or certified copy thereof in Court. When there is no relief claimed in the suit challenging the genuineness of the said GPA ?

(c)Whether the Ext.1 (the general power of attorney), the execution and registration of which is admitted by the executants thereof (plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) is a voidable document or void ab initio ?

(d)Whether the Courts below can ignore the Ext.1 (the GPA) in absence of declaration to declare the same as void ? It is humbly stated that the learned trial Court in paragraph-7 of its judgment towards last has observed that “no judicial observations can be given basing upon such documents in Ext.1”. The learned trial Court has not returned any finding as to whether the Ext.1 is a void document or voidable document and the said findings was not challenged by the plaintiffs. But the lower appellate Court by ignoring the aforesaid findings of the trial Court has ignored the Ext.1 as if the same is a void document.

(e)Whether the registered sale deed vide Exts. B and C executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 (present appellant) for self and for on behalf of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 by virtue of the GPA (Ext.1) can be altogether