Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1979, passed by the then learned District Judge, Kheri in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1978, who has allowed the appeal and has decreed the suit by reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Kheri, who had dismissed the Original Suit No. 13 of 1970.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Bal Govind had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 2.9.1968 and Mukhtarnama dated 29.8.1968 regarding the property of Smt. Ram Kali on the ground that after the death of Smt. Ram Kali on 31.8.1968, he is the successor of Smt. Ram Kali. It was also alleged that Smt. Ram Kali had received this property from her husband and she had died issue-less. She was under the influence of Madho Ram which was in distant relative of Smt. Ram Kali. Madho Ram had brought Smt. Ram Kali in connection with the treatment but got executed the Power of Attorney, which was registered on 29.8.1968. The mental condition of Smt. Ram Kali was not good at the time of execution of Power of Attorney and she was unable to understand its contents. In the garb of the said Power of Attorney, the defendant No. 1 had executed the sale-deed in favour of the defendant No. 2 on 2.9.1968, on which date, Smt. Ram Kali had already died. The defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the property. Smt. Ram Kali had not received any sale consideration. He has also come to know that Madho Ram had wrongly got recorded the wrong date of death of Smt. Ram Kali. The said Power of Attorney as well as sale-deed are liable to be cancelled, therefore, the suit was filed.

3. The defendants had contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. It was admitted that Smt. Ram Kali was owner of the said house and was a Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It has also been admitted that Madho Ram was relative of Smt. Ram Kali. Smt. Ram Kali had executed the Power of Attorney of her own free will and as per her wishes, the defendant No. 1 had executed the sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2. Denying the other allegations, it has been stated that the defendant No. 2 has got the sale-deed executed after paying the sale consideration. Smt. Ram Kali had died on 30.11.1968 and the defendant No. 2 was in possession of the property in dispute during life time of Smt. Ram Kali. Because the said Power of Attorney was not cancelled during the life time of Smt. Ram Kali, therefore, the defendant No. 1 was having right to execute the sale-deed. The sale consideration was received by Smt. Ram Kali herself. The suit of the plaintiff is misconceived.

4. Learned trial Court framed the following issues.

(1) Whether the pedigree as pleaded in para-1 of the plaint is correct ? Whether the plaintiff has got right to sue ?

(2) Whether the Power of Attorney dated 29.8.1968 was obtained by fraud and undue influence ?

(3) Whether Smt. Ram Kali was not able to understand the contents and implication of the Mukhtarnama at the time of its execution ?

(4) Whether the sale-deed dated 2.9.1968 was executed without the instruction of Smt. Ram Kali ? If so, its effect ?

(5) Whether the defendant No. 1 had authority to execute the sale-deed in respect of the house and trees ?

(6) Whether Smt. Ram Kali died on 31.8.1978 or she died on 30.11.1968 ?

(7) Whether Sri Rama Shanker was bona fide purchaser for consideration ? If so, its effect ?

(8) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

5. After considering the evidences of both the parties, learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur dismissed the suit by judgment and order dated 23.12.1977. Learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that Smt. Ram Kali had not died on 31.8.1968, but had died subsequent to 2.9.1968. Learned trial Court has also come to the conclusion that Madho Ram was not in such a position so that he might have dominated the will of Smt. Ram Kali and that he had not gained any unfair advantage by usin