The validity of transactions based on a Power of Attorney executed under undue influence is nullified automatically, influencing subsequent property rights.

ORDER

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, District Mandsaur in MJC/70/2017.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of a residential house against respondent No.3, 4 and 5. One Anita Makhija died on 18.3.2009 who happens to be the sister of plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 Premlal Makhija and Dr. Kanhaiyalal Makhija. She was working as Assistant Professor in Swami Vivekanand College Mandsaur and had a house situated at Jamindar Colony Mandsaur. Respondent no.4/Defendant - Sanjay Goja who happens to be the son of Respondent no3/defendant no.1 Sumitradevi Goja was driver of deceased Anita Makhija. Anita Makhija met with an accident on 20.10.2008 and she was undergoing treatment. She was not in a healthy mental condition and under pressure Respondent no.4/Sanjay got a power of attorney executed in favour of respondent no.3/Mrs. Sumitra Devi Goja. On the basis of that power of attorney Mrs. Sumitra Devi Goja sold the said house to respondent no.5/Mrs. Neetu Soni W/o. Rajesh Soni for a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- on 16.3.2009. This amount was paid before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale-deed. Thereafter the petitioner purchased the suit property from respondent no.5 through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.2009.

3. On 20.09.2012, the trial Court decreed the suit following which Respondent no.1 and 2 filed execution case before the Court of 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandsaur for recovery of the suit premises. On being aware of the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioner presented an objection application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC seeking adjournment in the execution proceedings on the ground that she was not made party in the original suit. A separate case MJC No.70/2017 was registered by 4th Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, wherein, the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that a first appeal F.A.No.8876/2012 is pending before the Division Bench, of this Court hence it would not be appropriate to grant stay of any kind. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous appeal M.A. No.1718/2015 against the said order before this Court which is pending. It is further alleged that in the first appeal the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead her as a party to the appeal, however, the application was rejected vide order dated 04.01.2017. The petitioner has approached this Court against the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 of rejection of her application Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent no.5 purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed from Respondent No.3 who was appointed as Power of Attorney of Anita Makhija. The respondent no.5 executed a sale deed with the petitioner for sale of the disputed land. Prior to executing the Sale deed, the petitioner published a notice in the newspaper to obtain any kind of encumbrance etc., however, no objection was received in this regard. On 14.05.2009 the respondent no.5 sold the suit property to the petitioner and handed over the physical possession to the petitioner. Since then, the petitioner has been in legal possession of the disputed property, constructed a two storeyed building and residing therein with her family.

5.