ORAL ORDER

1. The present second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), at the hand of the present appellant - original defendant No.4 arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Kachchh – Bhuj in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2021, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mundra, Camp at Mandavi in Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2018 (Old Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2016) allowing the suit.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :

2.1 The original plaintiffs were holding the ancestral land bearing survey No.82 (for short ‘the land in question’), which is known as ‘Bhojdevalu’ field, admeasuring Hec.2-05-38 Sq.Mtrs., situated at Mouje : Changdai, Taluka : Mandavi, District : Kachchh after the demise of their father and in possession of the said land.

2.2 Since they reside in Mumbai, they had given general power to Pritamlal Madhavlal Gor, now he is no more, on 05.08.2010.

2.3 On the basis of the said general power, Pritamlal Madhavlal Gor had sold the land in question to the present appellant and received Rs.2 lakhs in cash by executing a sale deed on 17.07.2012 and presented before the Sub-Registrar, Mandavi for registration.

2.4 Since the sale transaction was on the basis of the said power of attorney, the Sub-Registrar, against whom the document of sale is produced for registration, had issued notice to the executor/s on 21.07.2012.

2.5 Said general power had been cancelled by the executor on 03.08.2012 by way of public notice in the newspaper.

2.6 Upon receiving the notice from the Sub-Registrar, Mandavi for registration of the document of sale qua the land in question, the executor remained present before the Authority on 04.08.2012 and submitted his objections for registration of the said document of sale.

2.7 The Authority has registered the document of sale on 20.02.2015 and entry to that effect had been mutated in the revenue record.

2.8 The executor has challenged the said entry before the Mamlatdar being Takrari Case No.15 of 2015. The Authority has, after hearing the parties, certified the said entry on 31.08.2015.

2.9 The original land owners - the plaintiffs have, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as well as for cancellation of a registered sale deed under the Specific Performance Act and under Section 151 of the CPC.

2.10 The learned trial Court has, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, allowed the suit.

2.11 Being aggrieved, the original defendant No.4 – purchaser has preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2021 before the learned appellate Court below, which is dismissed on merit.

2.12 It is these judgments and orders of concurrent findings by both the Courts below, which are challenged by the appellant – original defendant No.4 – purchaser in this second appeal before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.R. Dave for the appellant, at admission stage, at length. He has suggested the following substantial questions of law for determination of this Court.

(i) Whether the Courts below have committed error of law and jurisdiction in holding that the POA was cancelled prior to registration of the sale deed despite clear admission in the plaint itself ?

(ii) Whether the Courts below have committed error of law and jurisdiction in holding that the POA giving all rights to the defendant No.3 is only for limited rights by measuring and misinterpreting the document on record ?

(iii) Whether the Courts below have committed error of law and jurisdiction when the receipt of consideration is accepted by the defendant No.3 in no uncertain terms ?

(iv) Whether the Courts below have committed error by not considering the fact that the defendant No.4 is bona fide purchaser for value ?

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.K.R. Dave for the appellant has submitted that this unequivocal language