The case emphasizes the importance of notice in the cancellation of a power of attorney and the need for vigilance and necessary inquiries by purchasers to seek protection under the Transfer of Property Act.

1. At the time of admission of this appeal on January 11, 1985, no substantial question of law was framed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I frame following substantial questions of law for determination in this appeal :

1. Whether a written notice of cancellation of a General Power of Attorney by the Principal is essentially required to be issued to the person holding such GPA and the subsequent vendee?

2. What is the extent of enquiries that a vendee must make to be eligible for the protection envisaged under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as a bona fide vendee?

3. Whether the objections taken by the plaintiff in this case against the subsequent will dated 26-5-1978 in favour of Harish Kumar (Ex.P1) amount to "suspicious circumstances" surrounding the said will.

2. Remaining unsuccessful in the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the findings and consequential judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

3. The dispute relates to the property of one Mahant Jaram Dass. It is admitted case of the parties that the property was owned by Mahant Jaram Dass. Defendant No. 4-Ram Gopal is the son and plaintiff, Smt. Ram Asri alias Nikko is daughter of Jaram Dass. Defendant No. 3-Harish Kumar is the son of Ram Gopal i.e. the grandson of Mahant Jaram Dass. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the purchasers of the property sold by Ram Gopal as an attorney of Mahant Jaram Dass. It is also admitted case of the parties that Jaram Dass executed a power of attorney registered with the Sub-Registrar, Anandpur Saheb on 10-6-1968 authorising him to manage and sell his property. On the authority conferred upon him, Ram Gopal claims to have sold the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, vide sale deed dated7-7-1977. Subsequently, Jaram Dass also executed a Will dated 26-5-1978 in favour of his grandson, Harish Kumar, respondent No. 3. Smt. Ram Asri filed the suit for possession of land measuring 33 kanals 7 marlas situated in Village Sahota on the plea that she being the daughter of Mahant Jaram Dass is entitled to inherit his property after his death. It was alleged that Jaram Dass died intestate on 15-10-1978. She also claimed that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are forcibly occupy-ing the suit property, on the basis of the sale deed allegedly executed by Ram Gopal, defendant No. 4. Plaint contains further allegations that Ram Gopal was not the attorney of Jaram Dass on 7-7-1978, the date of execution of the sale deed. She claims to have looked after deceased-Jaram Dass during his lifetime and thus challenged the Will dated 26-5-1978 executed by Jaram Dass in favour of Harish Kumar, defendant No. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and claimed to be the bona fide purchasers of the land. They pleaded that they purchased the property from Jaram Dass through Ram Gopal, his attorney duly registered with the Sub-Registrar. They also pleaded that they had no notice of any cancellation of power of attorney.

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

"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute? OPP

2. Whether Tarsam Dass had cancelled the general power of Attorney dated 10-6-1968 through registered cancellation deed dated 18-4-1977. If so, what are its effect? OPP

3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP

4. Whether the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the bona fide purchasers for a consideration without any prior notice? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her admission to challenge the Will executed in favour of Harish Kumar by Sh. Jaram Dass? OPD

6. Whether Sh. Jaram Dass had executed the valid Will dated 26-5-1978 in favour of Harish Kumar defendant while in his sound disposing mind? OPD

7. Whether the present suit is not maintainable against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as no permission has been obtained by the plaintiff to