The validity of property transfers requires compliance with terms set in a Power of Attorney, including obtaining consent for finalization.

1.This is an Appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of original defendant - appellant challenging the order dated 05.12.2020 passed, below Exhibit 5 application in Special Civil Suit No.4 of 2020 by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has partly allowed Exhibit 5 application thereby directing the original defendant - appellant not to create third party rights and restraining the defendant and his heirs and legal representatives, assignee etc. from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff till final disposal of the Suit.

2. Facts as pleaded by the appellant - original defendant are summarized as under:
2.1 The suit property is a residential premises / property known as "Kamal Bungalow" situated at Palanpur, Ward -1, City Survey No.11725, Municipal No.1/1469 Private B/1, admeasuring 1145.1 Sq. Mtr. along with construction thereon of around 901 Sq. Mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "suit property")
2.2 The suit property originally belonged to one Chimanlal Manchandbhai Shah, who by registered Will No.8356/56 has bequeathed the said property to his son namely Divyakant Chimanlal Shah, father of the original plaintiff.
2.3 The entry was mutated in the City Survey record since 30.06.1983. Shri Divyakant Chimanlal Shah bequeathed the said property to his son - original plaintiff by way of notarized Will dated 29.01.2005. Said fact is recorded in the City Survey record vide mutation entry No. 365 dated 19.02.2010. Thus, the plaintiff claimed to be sole and exclusive owner having acquired the rights in the suit property, which is an ancestral property. The plaintiff claim to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that though he was residing in Mumbai and the suit property has remained in locked position as keys continued to be in the possession of the original plaintiff. Even the furniture, fixtures, painting portraits of his grand-parents, cupboards, utensils, silver articles, carpets etc. are also lying in the said premises, which belongs to the original plaintiff.
2.4 It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2014, since caretaker of the property was not taking care of the property, the plaintiff was constrained to engage some person to take care of the suit property. In the year 2016, the plaintiff came in contact with one Shri Gyanvatsal Swami of Shri Swaminarayan temple situated at Vadodara and through mutual friend Shri Nilesh D. Somani, he came in contact of the defendant, who also claims to be a devotee of Shri Swaminarayan Bhagwan.The plaintiff was assured by the defendant of taking all necessary steps to take care of the property. On various occasions, the defendant had claimed the expenses towards maintaining the suit property from the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claimed to have paid to the defendant through Shri Nilesh Somani.
2.5 It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2017, the defendant had visited the plaintiff at Mumbai and expressed his apprehension about caretaker likely to raise litigation with regard to the suit property and therefore, convinced the plaintiff to get execution of General Power of Attorney. In such circumstances, the plaintiff in order to secure the suit property entered into General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that with the consent of the parties, specific terms were incorporated in the Power of Attorney whereby though the authority was given to take the charge and possession of the said p