IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11521 of 2010 1. MOST. BHAGWATI DEVI W/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 2. ANIRUDH PRASAD MANDAL S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 3. GOPAL MANDAL MINOR S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOST. BHAGWATI DEVI R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 4. RANJEET MANDAL MINOR S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOST. BHAGWATI DEVI R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 2. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, ZILA PARISHAD, BHAGALPUR 3. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, SABOUR ANCHAL, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ……….. Respondents Ist Party 4. BIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE YUGAL KISHORE SINGH R/O MOHALLA- JAWARIPUR, P.S.- TILKAMANJHI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 5. SMT. HIRA DEVI W/O BIJAY KUMAR SINGH R/O MOHALLA- JAWARIPUR, P.S.- TILKAMANJHI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ………. Respondents 2nd party For the Petitioners:- Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey & Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5:- Mr. V. Nath, Mr. Waliur Rahman & Mr. Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Rajeev Lochan A.C. To G.A-IX ----------- 02. 17.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 as also for private respondent nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners along with one Banarsi Mandal were the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 26 of 1994 filed against 2 respondent nos. 1 to 3 for declaration of right title and interest in the Suit lands and that the survey entries made in favour of the State Government to the extent of their lands was wrong. The petitioners are stated to have executed a Power Of Attorney in favour of Banarsi Mandal. Banarsi Mandal in turn transferred lands in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The prayer of respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be impleded earlier in the Suit and in Title Appeal No. 106 of 1998, preferred by respondent nos. 1 to 3 was disallowed as Banarsi Mandal was alive. After Banarsi Mandal has been deceased on 26.11.2009 during the pendency of the Appeal, the prayer of respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been allowed as there remained none to contest and defend the actions of Banarsi Mandal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Banarsi Mandal did not have any authority to execute any title deeds in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The Power Of Attorney had been revoked. The Suit was only for correction of revenue entries and no more. The Court finds from the pleadings of the petitioners that the Suit was for declaration of right title and interest also. What was the content of the Power Of Attorney. What was permissible or impermissible therein. On what date it was revoked. These are all very relevant matters even insofar as the corrections in the entries are 3 concerned. All these questions of facts will have to be decided and enquired into when there will have to be a defence led in support of the issues. If the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have been permitted to produce evidence in support of the correctness of the entries, claiming under a Power Of Attorney after the death of the person from whom they derived title through Power Of Attorney, this Court finds no error in the well discussed reasoning of the trial court with regard to the changed circumstances after the death of Banarsi Mandal to permit them to be impleaded as party, warranting any interference by this Court. The application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)