( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff whose suit for possession and mesne profits of a bungalow known as Ashley bungalow and appurtenant plot situate in Bilaspur has been dismissed.

( 2 ) SOMETIME in the year 1912 in U. S. A. , two bodies by names Christian Women board of Mission, America, and Foreign Christian Missionary Society, America, were formed. These two bodies were amalgamated to form a Society by name united Christian Missionary Society, America (U. C. M. S. (U. S. A.)), in the year 1920. At the same time in India operated two associations bearing like names, that is, Christian Women Board of Mission, India, and Foreign Christian missionary Society, India. These two bodies in India joined together to form indian Mission Disciples of Christ (I. M. D. C. ). The evangelistic part of the i. M. D. C. was carved out as a separate society known as Convention of churches of Disciples of Christ (C. C. D. C. ). This body was registered as a society in India under the Indian Societies Registration Act in 1942. In the year 1943, the United Christian Missionary Society in India was registered as a society. This body was popularly known as U. C. M. S. (India ). It was dissolved in the year 1968. In the year 1962, the India Church Council of Disciples of Christ (I. C. C. D. C.) was registered as a Society and in the year 1971 another institution bearing the name Service Association of Christian Church Disciples was registered as a Company. This I. C. C,d. C. was the defendant in the suit and is respondent No. 2 here. The other defendant in the suit (respondent No. 1) is edwin Bhagirathi who was sued as Secretary of the I. C. C. D. C.

( 3 ) THE appellant-plaintiff by a registered sale deed, dated 17-9-1971 (Ext. P-1), purchased the Ashley bungalow and the appurtenant land. The sale deed is executed by Shri F. C. Zonathan as agent of the U. C. M. S. (U. S. A.) on the strength of a power of attorney, dated 1-12-1976 (Ex. P-10a ). At the time of the purchase, the defendants were in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff-appellant could not get its possession. He, therefore, brought the suit for possession and also claimed mesne profits. The defence was twofold, namely, that the property never belonged to U. C. M. S. (U. S. A.) and, therefore, the sale deed Ex. P-l conveyed no right, title or interest in the suit property to the appellant and that in any case Shri F. C. Zonathan did not have the requisite power or authority to execute the sale deed on behalf of U. C. M. S. (U. S. A. ). For these reasons, it was urged by the defendants that despite the sale deed, the appellant has acquired no title to the suit property and should, therefore, be non-suited. This defence prevail-ed with the lower Court which has found that the plaintiff could not prove that the property in suit belonged to u. C. M. S. (U. S. A.) and that Shri F. C. Zonathan was not clothed with due authority to transfer the property on behalf of U. C. M. S, (U. S. A. ).

( 4 ) THE appellant's success in this appeal depends upon affirmative answers to the two questions namely, (i) whether the property in suit was owned by u. C. M. S. (U. S. A.) on the date of transfer in appellant's favour on 17-9-1971 and (ii) whether Shri F. C. Zonathan held a due power of attorney to transfer title on behalf of the U. C. M. S. (U. S. A. ). The answer to the first question depends upon the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. The appellant's plea in this behalf is that the land is nazul and bears Sheet No. 4 of nazul Plot No. 85/1. The suit bungalow was erected out of the funds advanced by the appellant's vendor in whose name the land was recorded in the relevant nazul papers. The lease of the plot was renewed in favour of U. C. M. S. (U. S. A. ). The U. C. M. S. (India) was in occupation of the suit property as a licensee of the appellant's predecessor. According to the appellant, neither the U. C. M. S. (India)nor any of the defendant-respondents ev