A third party has no right to challenge the validity of documents such as power of attorney and sale deed, and the court will uphold trial court findings based on proper reasoning.

JUDGMENT

The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2000 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No. 34A of 1996 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff Raghunath Singh pertaining to the land bearing Survey No. 3743/234 area one and half Bigha situated in Mauza Thara Tehsil Ambah District Morena for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as 'plaintiff' and respondents as 'defendants'.

2. The admitted facts in the case are that the land bearing Survey No. 3743/234 area one and half Bigha Mauza Thara Tehsil Ambah District Morena which is called 'disputed land' in this case. The disputed land was owned by the defendant No. 6 Jandel Singh.

3. The facts, in brief, of the plaint are that the plaintiff purchased the disputed land from the defendant no. 6 vide registered sale deed dated 3.4.95 (Ex-P/1). After paying the consideration to the defendant No. 6 the plaintiff obtained the possession of the disputed land. On 20.8.95 when the plaintiff went to the field for cultivating the same the defendant No. 1 and 2 restrained him and started quarreling with him on the pretext that the land is recorded in the name of their wives Shanti, Munnidevi and Urmila I.e. defendants no. 3, 4 and 5 on the basis of sale deed executed on 8.9.94 (Ex-P/24) by defendants no. 1 and 2 in the garb of some so called Power of Attorney executed by the defendant no. 6 Jandel Singh on 30.7.1994 (Ex-P/26) in their favour. On being asked from defendant No. 6 he told him that he had executed the power of attorney in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 only for defending the suit bearing No. 139A/92 pending before the court of Civil Judge Class II Ambah filed by his brother defendant No. 9 Balaster Singh but he did not authorize the defendants No. 1 and 2 to sell the disputed property and by playing fraud the power of attorney was got doctored to get themselves authorized to sell the disputed land. On this, the plaintiff obtained certified copy on 26.8.95 of the sale deed executed by the so called Power of Attorney holders in favour of their wives from the Registrar Office. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants have no right in the disputed property on the basis of the sale deed (Ex-P/24).

4. The defendants no. 1 to 5 submitting joint written statement have denied the facts stated in the plaint except execution on power of attorney Ex-P/26 and sale deed dated 15.9.92 (Ex-P/4). It was further stated that the plaintiff has no right of Bhumuswami in the disputed land on the basis of sale deed dt. 3.4.95 (Ex-P/1) as the defendant No. 6 Jandel Singh had no right to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff because his ownership right had already been sold by holder of power of attorney vide sale deed Ex-P/24 on 8.9.94 to the defendants No. 3 to 5. The power of attorney was not canceled by the defendant No. 6 before execution of the sale deed Ex-P/24. The defendants have further pleaded that the suit was filed by the plaintiff only for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants without seeking the relief for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 8.9.94 (Ex-P/24). Unless the said deed is canceled by a competent court the plaintiff cannot be declared Bhumiswami of the disputed land. The defendants have further pleaded that the defendants No. 3 to 5 are in possession therefore the plaintiff having no title to the disputed property as well as its possession, so the suit filed by him be dismissed.

5. The learned trial Court framed the seven issues and the findings recorded by the trial court are mentioned as under –

Issues Findings

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed land and in possession? No

2. Whether the defendants have challenged the ownership of the plaintiff and interfered in his peaceful posse