A purchaser of property who acts in good faith and takes reasonable care in verifying a registered power of attorney provided by an ostensible owner is protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even if the vendor's underlying authority is subsequently challenged.

****

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. The appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific portion by way of partition of the disputed plot. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved with the findings of the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2025 and by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2025, the appeal in hand has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

2. The facts as pleaded by the plaintiff (appellant herein) before the learned trial Court are that he and defendant/respondent No.3 Smt. Lalita Devi Sharma purchased the disputed plot on 27.10.1980 vide registered sale-deed Ex.P4/Ex.D3 in equal shares from one Somawati. After purchase, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 jointly filled up the foundations and constructed a boundary wall upto the height of one feet. When the plaintiff-appellant intended to raise construction over the portion of his share in the month of January-1999, defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 came at the spot and objected to the same. They also produced a registered sale deed Ex.D1 dated 27.11.1981 executed in their favour by defendant/respondent No.3. Then the plaintiff-appellant came to know that defendant/respondent No.3 had sold his share in the property to defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 on her behalf and on behalf of plaintiff-appellant as attorney. Defendant/respondent No.3 forged the power of attorney dated 30.10.1981 (Ex.P6/Ex.D2) in her favour and then executed the sale deed dated 27.11.1981 (Ex.D1). The said sale deed dated 27.11.1981 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff-appellant as the plaintiff-appellant never executed the power of attorney dated 30.10.1981 (Ex.P6/Ex.D2) and the same is a forged document. By the dint of sale deed dated 27.11.1981 Ex.D1, defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 became owners only to the extent of half share in the disputed property i.e. share of defendant/respondent No.3 and rest of the property to the extent of half share still owned by the plaintiff/appellant. In the month of January-February-1999, defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 erected boundary wall over the plot in dispute despite the protest raised by the plaintiff/appellant. Defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 also wanted to fix a gate in the boundary wall and raise more construction in the same, for which they have no right.

3. Upon notice, defendant/respondent No.1 filed written statement and contested the suit by raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit because defendant No.2-Tarawati had died in the year 1982, she had been impleaded as unnecessary party. Defendant No.1 further pleaded that construction of boundary wall over the plot in question was raised in the year 1985 after purchase of the plot and not in February-1999 as pleaded by the plaintiff. The height of the boundary wall is about six feet and defendant No.1 has also laid foundation of rooms etc. and installed a handpump. Defendant No.1 is growing vegetables and sugarcane crop over the plot as a kitchen garden. Defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession of the disputed property after the death of defendant No.2-Tarawati as the plot was jointly purchased by defendants No.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 27.11.1981 and since then defendant No.1 is in exclusive and physical possession of the plot in question.

4. On merits, defendant No.1 admitted that Somawati was the original owner of the disputed plot who sold the same in equal share to plaintiff and defendant No.3. Def