The concurrent findings established the validity of the power of attorney and the ratification of sale transactions, affirming the principle that acceptance of consideration constitutes valid ratification under contract law.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 , assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below. The appeal is primarily founded on the contention that the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Judge 1^st Class, Barnala and the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, are contrary to law, founded upon a manifest misappreciation of evidence, and have occasioned substantial prejudice to the appellant, thereby warranting the intervention of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the said provision.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. The salient and material facts forming the foundation of the present proceedings, which are essential for an informed adjudication of the issues, are briefly narrated as follows:-

“The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the power of attorney dated 23.04.1986, allegedly executed by Kapur Singh (plaintiff No.1) in favour of Gurdev Singh (defendant No.2), is forged, fictitious, and void, conferring no authority to alienate the plaintiff’s property. They further sought a declaration that sale deeds No.325 and 326 dated 25.04.1986, executed by Gurdev Singh in favour of Amarjit Singh (defendant No.1) regarding 1/7th share of land measuring 228 kanals 7 marlas situated at village Jehlan, Tehsil Barnala, are illegal, null, and void, and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession or alienating the suit land.

The case of the plaintiffs is that Kapur Singh, a 95-year- old illiterate and visually impaired villager, was fraudulently induced by Gurdev Singh under the pretext of obtaining eye medication to accompany him to Ludhiana, where his thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers without reading or explaining their contents. Subsequently, he discovered that Gurdev Singh had deceitfully procured a general power of attorney in his name and, acting upon it, executed two sale deeds in favour of Amarjit Singh. Upon learning of the fraud, Kapur Singh immediately revoked the said power of attorney through a registered revocation deed dated 25.04.1986. It was asserted that Kapur Singh had no relation with the defendants, had never resided at the address mentioned in the impugned document, and had no occasion or necessity to appoint Gurdev Singh as his attorney. The entire transaction, including the alleged sale deeds, is claimed to be fraudulent, without authority, and without consideration.”

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement. Defendant No.1, Amarjit Singh, asserted that the power of attorney dated 23.04.1986 was voluntarily and validly executed by Kapur Singh, duly authorizing Gurdev Singh to alienate the property. He contended that the impugned sale deeds were executed for lawful consideration and are binding. Allegations of fraud, coercion, or incapacity were emphatically denied, terming the plaintiffs’ case as false and collusive. He further pleaded lack of locus standi, misjoinder of parties and causes of action, estoppel, and improper valuation. He maintained that the sale transactions preceded the alleged revocation and that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Defendant No.2, Gurdev Singh, similarly denied all allegations, asserting that the sales were validly executed under due authority and that ₹ the full sale consideration of 40,000/- was paid to Kapur Singh on 27.04.1986 against a duly executed receipt.

4. Plai