A registered power of attorney creates a legal right in immovable property, which can only be limited or extinguished through a registered document.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. It is admitted case between the parties that plaintiff no.-1 had executed a registered general power of attorney (GPA) dated 9.2.1988 of his property in favour of defendant no.-1 Jitendra Kumar (son of Laxman Prasad). Then defendant no.-1 had executed sale-deed of disputed property on the basis of said power of attorney in favour of defendants no. 2, 3 and 4. Admittedly, defendants no. 2 and 3 are sons of Laxman Prasad and real brother of defendant no.-1 Jitendra Kumar. It is also admitted that defendant no.-4 Sharda Dutt is real father-in-law of defendant no.-1 Jitendra Kumar. It is also admitted that on the basis of power of attorney, the sale-deed was executed on 3.8.1991, but it was not registered that day, and its registration proceeding was performed and completed on 26.2.1992. It is proved from the evidences, although it was not admitted by defendants, that plaintiff has sent registered notice dated 3.10.1991 to defendant no.-1 for cancellation of registered power of attorney, which was served on him.

3. Plaintiffs had filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 3.8.1991 executed by defendant no.-1 (the power of attorney holder) in favour of defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 on the ground that this was executed without authority and without any consideration, as a result of conspiracy committed by defendant no.-1 with his brothers defendants no. 2 and 3 and father-in-law defendant no.-4. This ground was also taken that this sale-deed was executed without any bona fide or good faith, and was got executed for prejudicing the rights of plaintiff and defendant no.-5 over disputed property.

4. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties and accepting their evidences, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur had passed judgment dated 7.2.2009, by which original suit was decreed and sale-deed dated 3.8.1991, registered on 26.2.1992, was cancelled. In this judgment, trial court had given finding to the effect that plaintiff had sent first notice of cancellation of sale-deed by post under certificate of posting dated 8.7.1991 and held that sending of this notice under certificate of posting is proof of its service on defendant no.-1. Trial court had also given finding that after service of notice of cancellation of power of attorney, the sale-deed in question was executed, therefore it is liable to be cancelled, as defendant no.-1 had no right to execute sale-deed after such knowledge of power of attorney.

5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No.-10/2009 was preferred, which was heard and allowed by the judgment dated 7.11.2015 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-9, Fatehpur. In this judgment, first appellate court had held that registered document can be cancelled in accordance with law by registered deed only. It was also held that service of notice under certificate of posting dated 8.7.1991 and registered notice dated 9.10.1991 is legally not proved. First appellate court also held that in power of attorney, plaintiff no.-1 had authorized power of attorney holder defendant no.-1 to execute sale-deed, gift deed, mortgage deed or other transfer deed of disputed property and got it registered and received payment. With these findings first appellate court had held that till execution of sale-deed in question, the power of attorney executed by plaintiff no.-1 in favour of defendant no.-1 was not cancelled, and the power of attorney holder (defendant no.-1) had executed sale-deed in question under authority obtained from the owner of property that is plaintiff no.-1. Therefore, said grounds for cancellation of sale-deed are not proved. On the basis of these findings, first appellate court had allowed the appeal and dismissed the original suit.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs of the original suit.

7. Learned c