IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3628 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.3628 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.3628 OF 2006 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2003 IN IN IN B.C.C.C.SUIT B.C.C.C.SUIT B.C.C.C.SUIT NO.5163 OF 1999 NO.5163 OF 1999 NO.5163 OF 1999 1A. Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel 1B. Savita Ashok Patel 1C. Gulab Budhiya Vesta Patel 1D. Ramu Budhiya Vesta Patel All legal heirs of Late Budhiya Vesta Patel, residing at Survey No.108, Hissa No.1 & 2 C.T.S.No.169, Opp.Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon(W), Mumbai - 062. ..Applicants (Ori.Appellants) Versus Versus Versus 1. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari 2. Vinod Jayprakash Tiwari 3. Vishal Jayprakash Tiwari 4. Roshan Jayprakash Tiwari 5. Prakash Ramkishore Tiwari 6. Siddharth S.Tiwari ..Respondents Nos.1 to 6 residing at Tiwari (Ori.Defendant Bungalow, Ram Mandir Road, Nos.1 to 6 to Goregaon(W), Mumbai - 062. Suit.) 7. Leenan Anant Tambe of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant Residing ..Respondent at 34, Mangal Prasad, (Ori.Defendant Sir Bhalchandra Road, Dadar, No.7) Mumbai - 014. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/b.M/s.J.S.Anand & Associates for the Applicants. Mr.N.H.Seervai, Senior Advocate, i/b.Girish Godbole for Respondent No.7. WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3629 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.3629 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.3629 OF 2006 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.1389 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.1389 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.1389 OF 2003 IN IN IN B.C.C.C.SUIT B.C.C.C.SUIT B.C.C.C.SUIT NO.5163 OF 1999 NO.5163 OF 1999 NO.5163 OF 1999 1. Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel 2. Savita Ashok Patel 3. Gulab Budhiya Vesta Patel 4. Ramu Budhiya Vesta Patel All legal heirs of Late Budhiya Vesta Patel, residing at Survey No.108, Hissa No.1 & 2 C.T.S.No.169, Opp.Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon(W), Mumbai - 062. ..Applicants (Ori.Appellants) Versus Versus Versus 1. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari 2. Vinod Jayprakash Tiwari 3. Vishal Jayprakash Tiwari 4. Roshan Jayprakash Tiwari 5. Prakash Ramkishore Tiwari 6. Siddharth S.Tiwari ..Respondents Nos.1 to 6 residing at Tiwari (Ori.Defendant Bungalow, Ram Mandir Road, Nos.2 to 7 to Goregaon(W), Mumbai - 006. Counter claim. 7. Leenan Anant Tambe of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant Residing at 34, Mangal Prasad, Sir Bhalchandra Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 014. 8. M/s.Hitesh Enterprises A Partnership under Indian Partnership Act, having its principal place of business ..Respondent at 1/7, Vikas Centre, 104, Nos.8 & 9 (Ori. S.V.Road, Santacruz (W), Plaintiffs to Mumbai - 400 054. Counter claim) 9. Yusuf Vali Mohd. Bilikhiya Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, Residing at Room No.6, Survey No.108, Hissa Nos.1 & 2, CTS No.169, Opp.Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400 062. ..Respondent Nos.9 to 45 10.Ramsajivan Shivdhari Yadav (Ori.Defendant) Room No.3, Nos.8 to 44 to Counter Claim. 11.Pherulal Kanai Room No.4, 12.Bhikaji Aswale Room No.5, 13.Savita Ashok Patel Room No.2, 14.Muniraj Rambali Yadav Room No.7, 15.Ramrachha R.Patel Room No.8, 16.Lalchand Patel Room No.9, 17.Yadav Bansu Bali Room No.10, 18.Chandra Bhushan Ramchharam Yadav Room No.11, 19.Ram Kripal Yadav Room No.12, 20.Yadav Ram Akbal Room No.13, 21.Balkumar Devkinandan Upadhyay, Room No.14, 22.Surendra Kumar Bachharam Yadav Room No.15, 23.Yadav Vanshraj Ramnath Yadav Room No.16, 24.Mangru Ramdular Yadav Room No.17, 25.Manikraj Ramnaresh Yadav Room No.18, 26.Shivmurat Ganga Yadav Room No.19, 27.Subhedar Ganga Yadav Room No.20, 28.Rambrij Pattu Yadav Room No.21, 29.Ramrakas Hayadav Room No.22, 30.Ramdev Sadhoo Yadav, Room No.23, 31.Samai Ramdev Yadav, Room No.24, 32.Yadav Lalji Devraj Room No.25, 33.Sheetal Pandurang Parte Room No.26, 34.Shivbachan Dasuyadav Room No.27, 35.Jainat Munshwar Room No.28, 36.Prashant Jaykaram Yadav Room No.29, 37.Ramesh Phoolchand Gupta Room No.30, 38.Ramkewal Bhowal Yadav, Room No.31, 39.Yadav Avadhnarayan Ramesh Romani Room No.32, 40.Rajnarag Babunandan Yadav Room No.33, 41.Acchelal Babunandan Yadav Room No.34, 42.Tarachand Zabbulal Yadav Room No.35, 43.Lalji Zilu Yadav Room No.36, 44.Ramcharan Devnath Yadav Room No.37, 45.Balla Pahatu Yadav Room No.38, Nos.10 to 45, all Adult, Indian Inhabitants of Mumbai, residing at their respective Rooms on the land bearing Survey No.108, Hissa No.1 & 2, C.T.S.No.169, Opp.Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400 062. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, i/b.M/s.J.S.Anand & Associates for the Applicants. Mr.N.H.Seervai, Senior Advocate i/b.Girish Godbole for Respondent Nos.7 and 8. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.Jaykar a/w.Ms.S.Jaydeo i/b.Khaitan & Jayakar for Respondent No.9. WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3630 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.3630 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.3630 OF 2006 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2003 IN IN IN COUNTER COUNTER COUNTER CLAIM NO.11 OF 2002 CLAIM NO.11 OF 2002 CLAIM NO.11 OF 2002 IN IN IN B.C.C.C.SUIT B.C.C.C.SUIT B.C.C.C.SUIT NO.5163 OF 1999 NO.5163 OF 1999 NO.5163 OF 1999 Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilikhia adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at Room No.6, Survey No.108, Hissa No.1 & 2, CTS No.169, Opp.Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, ..Appellant Goregaon (West), (Ori.Defendant Mumbai - 400 062. No.9 in Counter Claim) Versus Versus Versus 1.Budhiya Vesta Patel ..Respondent No.1 (since deceased) 1A.Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel 1B.Savita Ashok Patel 1C.Gulab Budhiya Vesta Patel 1D.Ramu Budhiya Vesta Patel ..Applicants/ All legal heirs of Late Budhiya Vesta Respondent Patel, residing at Survey No.108, Nos.1/A to 1D Hissa No.1 & 2 C.T.S.No.169, Opp.Parsi (legal heirs of Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon(W), Ori.Defendant Mumbai - 062. No.1.) 2. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari 3. Vinod Jayprakash Tiwari 4. Vishal Jayprakash Tiwari 5. Roshan Jayprakash Tiwari 6. Prakash Ramkishore Tiwari 7. Siddharth S.Tiwari ..Respondents Nos.1 to 7 residing at Tiwari (Ori.Defendant Bungalow, Ram Mandir Road, Nos.2 to 7 in Goregaon(W), Mumbai - 006. Counter claim. 8. Leenan Anant Tambe of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant Residing at 34, Mangal Prasad, Sir Bhalchandra Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 014. 9. M/s.Hitesh Enterprises A Partnership under Indian Partnership Act, having its principal place of business ..Respondent at 1/7, Vikas Centre, 104, Nos.8 & 9 (Ori. S.V.Road, Santacruz (W), Plaintiffs to Mumbai - 400 054. Counter claim) 10.Ramsajivan Shivdhari Yadav Room No.3, ..Respondent Nos.9 to 45 11.Pherulal Kanai (Ori.Defendant) Room No.4, Nos.9 to 45 to Counter Claim. 12.Bhikaji Aswale Room No.5, 13.Savita Ashok Patel Room No.2, 14.Muniraj Rambali Yadav Room No.7, 15.Ramrachha R.Patel Room No.8, 16.Lalchand Patel Room No.9, 17.Yadav Bansu Bali Room No.10, 18.Chandra Bhushan Ramchharam Yadav Room No.11, 19.Ram Kripal Yadav Room No.12, 20.Yadav Ram Akbal Room No.13, 21.Balkumar Devkinandan Upadhyay, Room No.14, 22.Surendra Kumar Bachharam Yadav Room No.15, 23.Yadav Vanshraj Ramnath Yadav Room No.16, 24.Mangru Ramdular Yadav Room No.17, 25.Manikraj Ramnaresh Yadav Room No.18, 26.Shivmurat Ganga Yadav Room No.19, 27.Subhedar Ganga Yadav Room No.20, 28.Rambrij Pattu Yadav Room No.21, 29.Ramrakas Hayadav Room No.22, 30.Ramdev Sadhoo Yadav, Room No.23, 31.Samai Ramdev Yadav, Room No.24, 32.Yadav Lalji Devraj Room No.25, 33.Sheetal Pandurang Parte Room No.26, 34.Shivbachan Dasuyadav Room No.27, 35.Jainat Munshwar Room No.28, 36.Prashant Jaykaram Yadav Room No.29, 37.Ramesh Phoolchand Gupta Room No.30, 38.Ramkewal Bhowal Yadav, Room No.31, 39.Yadav Avadhnarayan Ramesh Romani Room No.32, 40.Rajnarag Babunandan Yadav Room No.33, 41.Acchelal Babunandan Yadav Room No.34, 42.Tarachand Zabbulal Yadav Room No.35, 43.Lalji Zilu Yadav Room No.36, 44.Ramcharan Devnath Yadav Room No.37, 45.Balla Pahatu Yadav Room No.38, Nos.10 to 45, all Adult, Indian Inhabitants of Mumbai, residing at their respective Rooms on the land bearing Survey No.108, Hissa No.1 & 2, C.T.S.No.169, Opp.Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400 062. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b.Mr.M.V.Jaykar a/w.Ms.S.Jaydev i/b.M/s.Khaitan & Jayakar & Co.for the Applicants. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/b.M/s.J.S.Anand & Associates for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D. Mr.N.H.Seervai, Senior Advocate i/b.Girish Godbole for Respondent Nos.8 & 9. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 31ST AUGUST,2007 RESERVED ON : 31ST AUGUST,2007 RESERVED ON : 31ST AUGUST,2007 JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON DELIVERED ON DELIVERED ON : 12TH OCTOBER,2007 12TH OCTOBER,2007 12TH OCTOBER,2007 JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT (PER : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (PER : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (PER : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) 1. By the above three Civil Applications, the Applicants are seeking recall of my order dated 13th June,2006, which was based on Consent-Terms duly signed by all the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: . The original Appellant Budhiya Vesta Patel, now deceased had filed suit before the City Civil Court, Bombay being the Suit No.5163 of 1999 wherein he was the original Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 and the Defendant Nos.7,8 & 9 and from 10 to 45 were subsequently impleaded as Defendants in the suit. The original Plaintiff the Appellant in the First appeal had also taken out Notice of Motion and which the same was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The Plaintiff herein thereafter filed Appeal from order No.486 of 2001 and wherein Court Receiver was appointed and wherein the Appellant was appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver. By an order dated 19th April,2002, the Court Receiver was directed to depute a representative to the suit land and to determine as to who was in actual physical possession of the suit land submit the report to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay. The Court Receiver was also directed not to dispossess and disturb any party who is found in possession of the lands in question being suit agricultural land bearing S.No.108, Hissa Nos.1 & 2, C.T.S.No.169, total admeasuring 4 acres 171/2 gunthas i.e.19627 sq.mtrs. situated at Goregaon, Tal.Borivali, Opposite Parsi Tabela, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai. 3. The aforesaid B.C.C.C.Suit No.5163 of 1999 was dismissed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai and the counter claim filed by the Leela Anant Tambe and M/s.Hitesh Enterprises being counter claim No.11 of 2002 was allowed by an Order and Decree of the City Civil Court dated 11th February,2003. The Plaintiff/Appellant herein thereafter filed First Appeal being No.1389 of 2003 and the said Appeal came for hearing on 29th January,2004 and the said Appeal was admitted and interim stay was granted pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal with the direction to the parties who were in possession of the suit land that undertaking should be filed in the Court that they would not create any third party right or interest or part with possession of the said premises which were in their possession. The Court Receiver who was appointed in Appeal from order No.478 of 2001, was also discharged. 4. That the Appellant Budhiya Vesta Patel died on 5th December,2004. The said Yusuf Vali Mohd.Milakhiya thereafter had taken out Civil Application No.3180 of 2005 in First Appeal No.1389 of 2003, Civil Application No.3181 of 2005 in First Appeal No.1390 of 2003 and Civil Application No.992 of 2005 in First Appeal No.1388 of 2003 and wherein Mr.Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya had prayed that he be brought on record in all the three Appeals in place of deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel as his legal representative as per Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. The abovesaid Civil Applications were allowed by me, by order dated 13th June,2006. Pursuant to the above order dated 13th June,2006, the names of the legal heirs of deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel naming them as 1a) Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel, 1b) Gullu Budhiya Vesta Patel, 1c) Ramu Budhiya Vesta Patel and 1d) Savita Ashok Patel, were incorporated in the above Appeals. 5. Mr.Dhakephalkar on behalf of the Applicants, made the following submissions for recall of the order dated 13th June,2006, based on Consent-Terms, mainly on the ground of fraud played upon this Court; . Mr.Dhakephalkar submitted that Fraud committed upon the Court can be summarised as follows:- a. The Consent-Terms showing the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel is a fraud upon the Court as the legal heirs have not filed any Civil Application for incorporating their names as legal heirs in the records. b. The names of the legal heirs of the deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel are shown in the Memo of Appeal by way of amendment in lieu of order dated 13th June,2006 when there is no such order for incorporating the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel in the Memo of Appeal and the Consent-Terms. This clearly shows the fraud committed by Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya. c. The Consent Terms are also fraud upon the Court since it has been stated that the legal heirs have been paid total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in full and final satisfaction of all the claims of the Appellants/Applicants. The said amount has not been received by the Applicants till today. d. It was stated before the Court that 4 cheques were issued to the legal heirs of the deceased but as they were not found and the copy of the cheques were produced before the Court which is again a fraud upon the Court. In the affidavit of Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya it has been stated that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was kept ready and is still lying to be paid to the Applicants which is contrary to what they had stated earlier, misleading the Court to believe that the amount was already paid. e. The Consent-Terms wherein the names of the legal heirs are deliberately shown as Applicants is dated 22nd May,2006 and it is shown that an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- has been paid by a Pay Order drawn in favour of M/s.Khaitan and Jaykar Advocates and Solicitors. The pay order is dated 6th June,2006 which is subsequent to the Consent-Terms. f. The order dated 13th June,2006 has been obtained on the statement made by the counsel and the parties that amicable settlement has been arrived in terms of the Consent Terms which were incorrect and the statements which were false to the knowledge of the Counsel and other Respondents. g. The legal heirs made a statement in the Civil Application that Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya had come to get sign the Consent Terms signed, which was refused and they were threatened and police machinery was used to force them to sign the Consent Terms. h. The complaint made by the legal heirs of the deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel before the Police opposing any settlement with Yusuf Vali Mohd. Bilakhiya and not intending to sign the Consent Terms, the same was not informed to the Court is itself a fraud upon the Court and therefore the order was obtained under fraud. i. The names of the legal heirs has been intentionally incorporated in the Memo of Appeal and Consent Terms contrary to the order dated 13th June,2006 only for the purpose of securing possession of the suit land which was always in the possession of the legal heirs. 6. The learned Counsel for the Applicants further contended that the Consent Terms cannot be made binding upon the legal heirs when they have not been paid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also contended that since the legal heirs of the deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel are not party to the Appeal proceedings, the question of any Power of Attorney executed by them or any undertaking given by them does not arise. 7. It is further contended by Mr.Dhakephalkar that there is no finding by any Civil Court that the said Power of Attorney alleged and termed as irrevocable Power of Attorney is coupled with interest and therefore the said Power of Attorney can be cancelled as there are disputes between the legal heirs of the deceased and the said Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya. 8. The learned Counsel for the Applicants further states that the Power of Attorney alleged to be irrevocable has been given by Budhiya Vesta Patel to Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya only to look after the formalities with the Govt. and B.M.C. since he was uneducated and Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya took advantage of his illiteracy and had obtained various signatures on various documents and forged the signature of the wife of Budhiya Vesta Patel and all this was done for his selfish, malafide and his ulterior motive. 9. It is also submitted that the order dated 13th June,2006 has been passed wherein the Counsel had stated that the names of Respondent Nos.3 to 8 and 10 to 45 be deleted as they are only occupants of various structures and that by deleting their names they would not be prejudiced in any manner as regards their rights and contentions as the Consent Terms have been filed only with regard to the present Appellant. 10. It is further submitted that the Consent-Terms are also fraud upon the Court since in the Consent Terms, it is stated that Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya had executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Mohan Deshmukh and Jayshree Deshmukh, nominees of Respondent No.2 M/s.Hitesh Enterprises in lieu of the Power of Attorney executed by the legal heirs of the deceased is not maintainable since the legal heirs are not party to the dispute and are not on record in the Appeal. Furthermore, the Power of Attorney as alleged to have been executed by the legal heirs, wherein it shows Registration fees of Rs.100/- and copying charges of Rs.520/- and therefore the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be coupled with interest and can be revoked at any time. 11. Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned Counsel for the Applicants lastly contended that a Fraud has been committed upon the deceased Budhiya Vesta Patel and the legal heirs who belong to Schedule Tribe known as "Dhodhiya Tribe" and the document in terms of certificate has been issued by Sub-Divisional Officer. Any transfer of property of the tribal is subject to provisions of section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 and no sale of occupancy of the land with the tribal can be allowed without previous sanction approval of the Collector and/or State Govt. and in the event of any Agreement contrary to the same, the same would be void and illegal. 12. Mr.Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel for and on behalf of M/s.Hitesh Enterprises, the Respondent No.8 herein, submitted that the owner of the property was Anant Tambe and after the demise of Anant Tambe, his wife Smt.Leelan Anant Tambe had become the owner of the said property. In Suit No.1230 of 1992, which was pending in the High Court, a Consent Term had been filed between M/s.Hitesh Enterprises and Smt.Leelan Tambe, and after passing of a decree and on payment of stamp duty, the said Consent Terms were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Borivali, and accordingly, M/s.Hitesh Enterprises became absolute owner of the said property. 13. It is further contended that Mrs.Ramkishore Tiwari was the contractual tenant deployed by Anant Tambe, who was cultivating grass since 1954-55. Late Mr.Budhiya Patel was appointed as watchman by Ramkishore Tiwari for protecting the produce from the land and a kuthca tin shed was provided to him. Mr.Budhiya kept on extending the rooms and now there are 38 rooms in a chawl known as Budhiya Vesta Patel Chawl. 14. It is further contended by Mr.Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel, that in response to the notice given by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai to Budhiya Vesta Patel for demolishing unauthorised construction which is known as Budhiya Vesta Patel Chawl, he had filed a Long Cause Suit. Mr.Budhiya Vesta Patel had claimed that he was in possession and occupation of the structure admeasuring 20 feet/70 feet for last several years and that he was in possession of the land admeasuring 484 sq.yards. In the present case, he has tried to make out a case that he is in possession of the entire land admeasuring 19627 sq.mtrs., which is totally false as per his own admission in the above referred suit. Subsequently, when Budhiya Vesta Patel tried to get his name entered in the revenue records, the same was not allowed. In short, Budhiya Patel and consequently the Applicants had no right whatsoever in the property or any part thereof. 15. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Thorat that on 12th January,1994, a Development Agreement was signed by Budhiya Vesta Patel and Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya granting development rights in favour of Bilakhiya and the consideration for the said Agreement was Rs.2,00,000/- which was fully paid by Bilakhiya to Budhiya. On 17th February,1994, Budhiya Vesta Patel executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with interest in favour of Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya for dealing with and disposing of the property in dispute and the same was duly registered. It appears from the Power of Attorney that the document was being executed pursuant to the Agreement for Sale between the parties. The registered Power of Attorney permits Bilakhiya to sell the property, to declare and affirm all legal and Court documents and pleadings, authorise him to compromise and settle all demands and that it shall not be revoked for 15 years. Thereafter on 15th December,1995, a Deed of Confirmation was also came to be executed and both the documents i.e. Power of Attorney and a Deed of Confirmation were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances,Mumbai. 16. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Thorat that on 23rd August,2001 a declaration was signed by Budhiya Patel declaring that he had received full consideration for the sale of his right, title and interest in the property. It further provides that the General Power of Attorney dated 17th February,1994 was coupled with interest within the meaning of the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. It is further pointed out that the Agreement of Sale dated 12th January,1994, Deed of Confirmation dated 15th December,1995 and the Power of Attorney dated 17th February,1994 were neither cancelled nor revoked and that they were still subsisting. It was further mentioned that all these documents were binding not only on Budhiya Patel but his heirs also. 17. It is contended that Budhiya Vesta Patel had filed a suit against Ramkishore Tiwari claiming ownership through adverse possession. Upon knowing about the filing of suit by Budhiya Patel, M/s.Hitesh Enterprises and Power of Attorney Holder of Anat Tambe the original owners had intervened the suit, as neither Ramkishore Tiwari nor Budhiya Vesta Patel were the owners of the property. 18. Mr.Thorat pointed out that on 9th April,2002, the Court had passed an order in respect of a suit filed by Leelan Tambe, appointing a Court Receiver in respect of the said property. The Court had directed the Court Receiver to ascertain as to who was in possession and directed the City Civil Court to pass an appropriate order based on the report of the Court Receiver. Accordingly, on 22nd August,2002 Budhiya and Bilakhiya were jointly appointed as Agents of the Receiver, and they gave a joint undertaking as required under the law. On 10th November,2003, the suit filed by Budhiya Vesta Patel was dismissed by the City Civil Court and the counter claim filed by M/s.Hitesh Enterprises was allowed. 19. Ultimately, all the aggrieved parties had filed Appeals, wherein interim order came to be passed ordering existing possession to continue and M/s.Hitesh Enterprises was allowed to put up fencing around the boundary. 20. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Thorat that Budhiya Vesta Patel has expired on 5th December,2004 at Bombay. Thereafter on 7th January,2005 irrevocable Power of Attorneys were executed by the Applicant in favour of Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya. Each of these Powers of Attorney were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 23rd/24th February,2005. 21. It appears from these Powers of Attorney that they are pertaining to the property in dispute and that these were pursuant to the earlier Development Agreement. All these Powers of Attorney were coupled with interest in the property which is the subject matter of the dispute. The said Power of Attorneys authorises Yusuf Vali Mohd.Bilakhiya to sell, transfer, raise money, compromise, compound and settle any dispute regarding the said property. On the basis of the Powers of Attorney, Yusuf Vali Mohd.Milakhiya had filed a Civil Application in the month of March,2005 to bring on record the heirs of Budhiya. Accordingly, affidavits have been came to be filed in support of the Civil Applications filed by the Applicant. From the affidavits, it appears that the Agreement for Development, Deed of Confirmation and the irrevocable Powers of Attorney were supported by valid consideration and requisite stamp duty has been paid on