© CF0000048283 "^ .^r c) IN THE HIGH COBRT GF -JHDICATURE-AT-BILASPUR ( C .G.) (FIRST » ' APPEAL J3^ /200^)^ APPELLANT DEFENDENT No.3 Paresh Chandra Chakraborty S/o Late Kali Prasad, Aged 56 years R/o Chirimiri Distt. Sarguja (C.G.)• VERSUS ^' RESPONDENTS 1. ^ ^ot "'t."'^A-% ,c?^-' ^:^^^yQ:^" v<^^\,. •••-" 6-w'5 ' h^ •^Y^ ••^ o'" /I, N.A.Khan S/o Late G.Khan /^e4 58/^r3 R/o Green Park Colony <X, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur Tahsil & Distt^Bilaspur C.G. PLAINTIFF. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) Sadik AliS/o Najare Hussain Aged 42 years, R/o Jarhabhata^ Near GTatiya Talab, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.Ge) Afsar Ali S/o Hasmaf Ali Aged 32 years, R/o Purani Basti Korba, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (C.G.). Subodh Shrivastava S/o G.S.Shrivastava Aged 40 years, R/o Qtr<No. 2-B/4, Kukada Vishrampyr Distt.Sarguja (C.G,). Smt,Neeta Mathur W/o Alok Mathur, Aged 31 years, R/o A-47, Rajkishore Nagar Tahsil & Distt.Bilaspur C.G< Contd.<. • ••'?•• »•<£.• • k '^v 7. Fariyad AliS/o Mashrooh Ali Hussain, Aged 36 years, R/o Nehru Nagar, Korba Tahsil & Distt. Korba C.G. 8, Brijesh Kumar Sinha S/o Vibhutibhooshan Sinha Aged 41 years, R/o Charcha Colliery, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, Distt. Baikunthpur (C.G-) ./ ^ «• ." ^ • ' '. • ^. 9. Smt.Sangeeta Singh / W/o Vinod Kumar Singh ? Aged 30 years, R/o L.I.G. Qtr.No. 273, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, Distt • Korba C.G. 10, Smt.Rashmi Shrivastava W/o V.K.Shrivastava Aged 30 years, R/o 50. Co-operative Colloney Bokaro Steel Crty, Bokaro (Bihar) ,^ .^' DEFENDENTS FIRST CIVIL APPEAL VALUED AT^^S 1 8,0 00 //- FOR VALUATION. COURT FEE FAID Rs. 10O/- y. AGAINST JUDGEMENT AND DECBES PASSED IN CIVIL SUIT 22-X/2000 BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BI^ASPUR (C.G.) ON 31ST JULY 2002.^ 'y Contd..3.• ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeal No.148 of 2002 Sadiq Ali and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and others FirstADDealNo.99of2003 Paresh Chandra Chakraborty versus NAKhan and others JUDGMENT (. - Postfor 9-9-2010 sd//- : Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge i A...^',4.; "i4%^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellants Resoondents FirstADpeal No.148 of 2002 Sadiq Ali and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedyre First Apoeal No.99 of 2003 Appellant Respondents versus Paresh Chandra Chakraborty N.A.Khan and others Present: Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.2. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.3 to 10. First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedyre JUDGMENT (Delivered on o^September, 2010) By this common judgment, First Appeals No. 148/2002 and 99/2003 are disposed of, as both the appeals arise out of one suit \and the facts and issues are common. Facts of First Appeal v <No. 148/2002 are taken up for the common judgment. ^ 2. First Appeal No. 148/2002 is defendants' first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance directing the appellant No.1 to execute a sale-deed with respect to suit land bearing Khasra No.15/237 area 0.50 acre and Khasra No.15/238 area 0.50acre situated at Village Lingiadih, P.H. No.20, R.l. Circle, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (henceforth 'the suit land'). The trial Court has also declared the sale-deed dated 30-7-1998 executed by defendant No.7/appellant No.3 Fariyad Ali in favour of defendant No.S/appellant No.6 Brijesh Kumar Sinha, defendant No.9/appellant No.7 Smt. Sangeeta Singh, defendant Np.lO/appellant No.8 Smt. Rashmi Shrivastava and the sale-deed dated 10-12-1998 executed by the defendant No-4/appellant No.2 Afsar Ali in favour of defendant No.S/appellant No.4 Subodh Shrivastava, defendant No-6/appellant No.5 Smt. Neeta Mathur, as null and void (status of the parties, as indicated above, have been mentioned as have been stated in FirstAppealNo. 148/2002). 3. Plaintiff's case is that one Sukhudas owned 1.00 acre land bearing Khasra No.15/62. The said land was purchased by defendants Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali by two separate sale-deeds dated 18-3-1991 each for 0.50 acre and thereafter the area purchased by Afsar Ali was renumbered as Khasra No. 15/237 and the area purchased by Fariyad Ali was renumbered as Khasra No.15/238. The said Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali were related to /defendant No.1 Sadiq Ali. In January, 1994, the said Afsar Ali and ^^^: .y-^". .^..^^. /:&^€'^. ?"^.B 1 ^Qj .^^s^^'1' ^ Fariyad Ali made oral contract for sale of the suit land to the plaintiff's son. Under the agreement, both the persons were to be paid Rs.90,000/- each and the sale-deed was to be executed within 1 year, i.e., by January, 1995. Plaintiff's son paid Rs.80,000/- each to the said Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali. Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali were in need of money, therefore, they instructed the plaintiff's son to make payment of the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- — Rs.10,000/- to each of them and to get the sate-deed executed by 201 January, 1995. The plaintiff's son was neither having the remaining sale-consideration nor the expenses for execution of the sale-deed with him, however, on hearing this Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali offered the plaintiff's son to refund the amount and to sell it to some other person. At this point of time, defendant No.1 Sadiq Ali was present and since he was related to Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali and was also having good relation with the plaintiff, he advised the plaintiff's son that Afsar Ali and Fariyad Ali may subsequently rescind the contract, therefore, he may take the required amount from him as loan, which the plaintiff's son. received and paid to Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali. On receiving the amount, they executed two separate registered power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's younger son and also handed over the possession along with the original Rin-Pustika and the sale-deed executed by Sukhudas in their favour. For want of funds, the sale-deed could not be executed in favour of the plaintifTs son. 4. It was further stated by the plaintiff that when defendant No.1 Sadiq Ali was informed about these developments, he suggested the ^l^- plaintiff's son that in absence of sale-deeds the revenue records will continue to record names of Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali. They may also cancel the power of attorney as they are not persons of good repute and integrity. Sadiq Ali, therefore, proposed to the plaintiffs son that he is ready to advance the amount for expenses in getting the sale-deed registered, without any interest and that the plaintiff's son may refund both the amounts as soon as possible. On this, the plaintiff and his son proposed that a sale-deed would be executed by the plaintiffs younger son A.A.Khan in favour pf Sadiq Ali andas soon as the loan amount is refunded to Sadiq Ali, he shatl execute a sale-deed in favour of plaintiff's son Ashfak Ahmed Khan and the plaintiff himself. Defendant No.1 Sadiq Ali accorded to this proposal and stated that he will get his name recorded in the revenue records so that later on he shall be in a position to execute the sale-deed in favour of Ashfak Ahmed and the plaintiff. As per this arrangement, plaintifTs younger son A.A.Khan executed two separate sale-deeds in favour of Sadiq Ali on 30-1-1995. The expenses were borne by Sadiq Ali, however, the original sale-deed was handed over to Ashfak Ahmed Khan and Sadiq Ali and an unregistered power of attorney in favour of Ashfak Ahmed Khan was executed by Sadiq Ali. Sadiq Ali initiated mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar, which was allowed on 7-6-1995, however, Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali filed appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the meanwhile, when the revenue appeal was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadiq Ali executed an agreement to sell in favour of the Iplaintiffon 29-10-1996 (Ex.P-19). ^> 5. It was further stated in the plaint that the revenue appeal preferred by Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali challenging the order of mutation in favour of Sadiq Ali was allowed and thereafter Sadiq Ali preferred second revenue appeal before the Commissioner. In the meanwhile, theplaintiff refunded the amount of loan of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- to Sadiq Ali in the month of October, 1998 and requested him to execute the sale-deed in his favour, however, on the pretext of pendency of revenue appeal before the Commissioner, he promised that as soon as the appeal is disposed of, he shall execute the sale-deed. The plaintiff came to know that SadiqAli, Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali have colluded and have reached some understanding, compelling the plaintiff to serve a legal notice dated 17-12-1998 to Sadiq Ali for execution of the sale-deed, however, he did not reply to the notice. By amending the plaint, the plaintiff averred that Sadiq Ali had made statement in the revenue Court that he has lawfully purchased the property from the attorney holder of Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali and on this statement his name was mutated. The plaintiff further stated that Sadiq Ali illegally executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant Paresh Chandra Chakraborty (Appellant of First Appeal No.99/2003) on 18-11-1996 for an area admeasuring 2400 Sq.Ft. from Khasra No.15/237. In the revenue Court, Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali moved objection on the ground that they have not executed any power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's son AA.Khan. Sadiq Ali subsequently withdrew his appeal pending before the Commissioner on 3-11-1998 by colluding 1 with Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali. On 30-7-1998, Fariyad Ali registered Ithree sale-deeds for area 2400 Sq.Ft., 2100 Sq.Ft. and 4800 Sq.Ft. ^\ from Khasra No. 15/238 in favour ofdefendants Brijesh Kumar Sinha, Smt. Sangeeta Singh and Smt. Rashmi Shrivastava respectively and that all these sale-deeds are illegal and void. On 11-12-1998, Afsar Ali executed two sale-deeds for area 4800 Sq.Ft. and 6000 Sq.Ft. from Khasra No. 15/237 in favour of Subodh Shrivastava and Smt. Neeta Mathur respectively, which are illegal and void. 6. On these allegations, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance directing the defendants to execute a sale- deed with respect to the suit property in his favour and for declaring the sale-deeds dated 18-11-1996, 30-7-1998 and 11-12-1998 executed by Sadiq Ali, Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali in favour of other defendants as mentioned earlier be declared null and void and that the respective purchasers have not acquired right, title or interest by virtue of the said sale-deeds. 7. The defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied the plaint allegations inter alia stating that Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali have not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff, he has not paid the amount of Rs.80,000/- to Farjyad Ali and Afsar Ali, possession of the land was never handed over to Ashfak Ahmed Khan, the land remained in possession of Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali, who informed the defendants that they have not executed any power of attorney in favour of Ashfak Ahmed Khan, he has never informed the plaintiff that Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali are not the persons of good repute and integrity, he has never offered loan to the plaintiff or his son Ashfak Ahmed Khan, however, he admitted execution of the sale-deed by ^the plaintiff's son in his favour though he denies the background \, . 1.^^..^,"^ •^^^" stated by the plaintiff in execution of these sale-deeds in his favour. He was not aware that the power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's son was forged and that in fact he had paid Rs.10,000/- for each sale-deed and the expenses of registration for execution of the sale-deed. He denies that any agreement for execution of a return sale-deed was made in favour of the plaintiff or his son on repayment of the amount of Rs.20,000/- and the registration expenses. He denies that he had executed any power of attorney in favour of Ashfak Ahmed Khan. He admitted that in the sale-deed executed in his favour it is mentioned that Ashfak Ahmed Khan had paid Rs.80,000/- to each Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali and on this basis the defendant No.1 proceeded to mutate his name, which was allowed by the Tahsildar. The defendant No.1 further states that when he came to know that the alleged power of attorney executed by Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali in favour of the plaintiffs son was forged, he withdrew the revenue appeal from the Court of Commissioner, however, the plaintifTs son Ashfak Ahmed Khan refused to hand over possession of the land. He executed the sale-deed in favour of Paresh Chandra Chakraborty to recover his amount. He denies to have engaged Shri Marhas, Advocate and has got published a news item in rebuttal. He has denied the agreement/undertaking Ex.P-19 and thus according to him, the question of executing a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff does not arise. According to this defendant, the plaintiff has never repaid the amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- and that he has not colluded with Fariyad Ali and Afsar \li. He denies that the sale-deeds dated 18-11-1996, 30-7-1998 and 11-12-1998 are illegal and void. ^ ^ 8 8. Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali filed separate written statements and denied the plaint allegations. They denied to have received Rs.80,000/- each from the plaintiff or to have executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's son. According to them, there was no agreement with Ashfak Ahmed Khan, therefore, question of payment made by him does not arise andsimilarly payment of balance consideration also does not arise. According t6 these defendants, the power of attorney are forged and it has been registered in an illegal manner. They have cancelled the power of attorney and that they are in continuous possession of the land and after sale of certain areas, the purchasers are in possession. The sale-deeds made in favour of Sadiq Ali wasalso brandedas illegal and jneffective. According to these defendants, the sale-deeds executed by Sadiq Ali in favour of Paresh Chandra Chakraborty is illegal, which shall be challenged by them. Payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- to Sadiq Ali was also denied by these defendants and the plaintiffs plea of collusion between themselvesand Sadiq Aliwas also denied. According to them, the sale-deeds executed in favour of private defendants are legaland binding on the parties as well as on the plaintiff. 9. Defendants Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali further stated that Sadiq Ali is not bound to execute any sale-deedas he has no such right. 10. Defendant No.3 Paresh Chandra Chakraborty filed separate \written statement and denied the plaint allegations, however, in paragraph 6, he made this statement that Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali J-7 \.., c executed sale-deeds in favour of Sadiq Ali on 30-1-1995. According to this defendant, he is a bona fide purchaser as on the date of execution of the sale-deeds, name of Sadiq Ali was mutated in the revenue records. 11. In course of trial, the plaintiff submitted his own evidence as P.W.-1, Bhagwandas as P.W.-2, Ranvir Singh as P.W.-3, Ashfak Ahmed as P.W.-4, Mahendra Singh as P.W.-5, Aftekhar Ahmed Khan as P.W.-6. On the other hand, defendant Sadiq Ali examined himself as D.W.-1. Defendant No.3 examined himself as his wjtness No.1 and Nawal Kishore Sharma as his witness No.2. Defendant No.7 Fariyad Ali examined himself as witness No.1 of defendant No.7. 12. The trial Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, has recorded the following findings: (a) Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs sog for sale of the land which they have purchased from Sukhudas for Rs.90,000/- each. (b) Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali received Rs.80,000/- each from Ashfak Ahmed Khan in December, 1994. (c) Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali received balance amount of Rs.10,000/- from Ashfak Ahmed Khan on 19-1- 1995 and executed two separate power of attorney in favour of A.A.Khan and handed over possession oftheland. ^(d) Sadiq Ali agreed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff after refund of the amount of ':-:?^ I. 1 ^^ i?^^^*1"" :%3^^^1 ^ 10 Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- and that he has executed the agreement dated 29-10-1996. (e) The sale-deed executed by Sadiq Ali in favour of Paresh Chandra Chakraborty dated 18-11-1996 is illegal and void. Similarly, the sale-deed executed by Fariyad Ali in favour of defendant No.8 Brijesh Kumar Sinha, defendant No.9 Smt. Sangeeta Singh and defendant No.10 Smt. Rashmi Shrivastava on 30-7-1998 is illegal and void. Similarly.the sale- deed executed by Afsar Ali in favour of defendant No.5 Subodh Shrivastavaand defendant No.6 Smt. Neeta Mathur on 10-12-1998 is illegal and void. (f) The plaintiff is entitled to get executed a sale-deed from defendant No.1 Sadiq Ali. (g) The suit is not barred by limitation nor it is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and that the present suit for declaration is maintainable. 13. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the agreement Ex.P-19 is not an agreement to sell and the same is not proved. It was put forth that in any case there was no agreement with the plaintiff N.A.Khan and that on the plaintiffs own averment, the agreement was with A.A.Khan, therefore, suit by NAKhan is not maintainable. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no evidence regarding readiness and willingness and there is absolutely no evidence regarding payment of money and that a decree for mere declaration cannot be granted when the plaintiff is not in possession. Learned counsel relied upon Ganesh Shet vs. Dr. C.S.G.K. Setty and others, _^^. ^3 '^tSS^sSK^ 11 (1998) 5 SCC 381, Thiruvengada Pillai vs. Navaneethammal and another, 2008 AIR SCW 1684 and V.R.Sudhakara Rao and others vs. T.V.Kameswari, (2007) 6 SCC 650. 14. Per contra, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.2/the plaintiff would submit that there was no objection before the trial Court that the suit by the present plaintiff was not maintainable and that existence of oral contract is to be gathered from the conduct of the parties. It was specifically and categorically stated by learned counsel for the respondent No.2/plaintiff that Ex. P-19 is not in factan agreement to sell, but it is a sort of declaration confirming existence of oral agreement which is enforceable in law. Refuting the absence of pleading about readiness and willingness, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/plaintiff has submitted that when the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- was paid to Sadiq Ali, which has been averred in paragraph 15 of the plaint, separate averment for readiness and willingness would not be required. Learned counsel has relied on Aloka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and others, 2009 AIR SCW 1030, M.P.Mathur and others vs. D.T.C. and others, AIR 2007 SC 414, Motilal Jain vs. Smt. Ramdasi Devi and others, AIR 2000 SC 2408, Mst. Sugani vs. Rameshwar Das and another, AIR 2006 SC 2172, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., (2008) 1 SCC 503 and Prithvi Raj Singh vs. Dalip Kulkarni and others, AIR 1999 Rajasthan 201 to submit that oral contract is permissible and \-... / 12 conduct of the parties are important when the Court is to exercise discretion under the Specific Relief Act. 15. The core issue for adjudication in both the first appeals is whether Ex.P-19 is an agreement to sell, if yes, is it valid because it contains signature of only one of the contracting partiesor Ex.P-19 is only a declaration or undertaking evidencing existence of oral contract. 16. In order to appreciate and adjudicate on the above mentioned core issue, it is necessary to refer to the evidence available on record. The plaintiff has placed on record all the documents in original before this Court. Ex.P-1 and P-2 are two sale-deeds executed by Sukhudas in favour of Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali on 18-3- 1991. Ex.P-3 and P-4 are the original Bhu-Adhikar and Rin-Pustika, which are the documents of title issued by the Department of Revenue of the State Government. Ex.P-5 and P-6 are two power of attorney executed by Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali in favour of the plaintiffs son A.A.Khan on 19-1-1995. Ex.P-7 and P-8 are two sale- deeds executed by the plaintiffs son AA.Khan in favour of the defendant Sadiq Ali on 30-1-1995. Ex.P-9 and P-10 are two deeds by which Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali cancelled the power of attorney dated 19-1-1995 made by them in favour of the plaintiff's son A.A.Khan. These cancellation deeds were executed on 9-2-1995 after the execution of sale-deeds by the plaintiff's son AA.Khan in favour of Sadiq Ali on 30-1-1995. It is important that Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali have not taken any step to get these sale-deeds Ex.P-7 and P-8 set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction, if according ^*-"-^^ ^€!'^\ ,f ;%1^' ?.. "'^ /l v'<%^p^.-^.-^y &] 13 to them, the power of attorney executed by them in favour of A.A.Khan was forged. Further, in the deed of cancellation Ex.P-9 and P-10 dated 9-2-1995, they have mentioned that the power of attorney executed by them on 19-1-1995 in favour of A.A.Khan are cancelled, whereas, in the written statement, their averment is that they have never executed the power of attorney dated 19-1-1995 and their signatures on the said documents are forged and that they have never got it registered. Ex.P-11 is the original Bhu-Adhikar and Rin-Pustika in favour of Sadiq Ali with respect to both the pieces of land. Ex.P-12 and P-13 are the orders ofmutation in favour of Sadiq Ali. Ex.P-14 and P-15 are the certified copy of the order-sheets of the Court of Additional Commissioner recorded on 29-4-1997, whereinAdvocate Shri Ranvir Singh appeared on behalf of Sadiq Ali, whereas in his written statement, Sadiq Ali has stated that he has never engaged Advocate Shri Ranvir Singh. There is nothing on record to suggest that if he has not engaged the said lawyer, whether any action was initiated by Sadiq Ali and further when he has not engaged any lawyer meaning thereby he has not preferred any appeal, how, an averment has been made in the written statement that he withdrew the appeal before the Commissioner on finding that the power of attorney shown to him by A.A.Khan alleged to be executed by Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali was forged. Ex.P-16 and P-17 are the order-sheets of the Court of Additional Commissioner recorded on 3-11-1998 dismissing Sadiq Ali's appeal as not pressed. Ex.P-18 is the sale-deed in favour of defendant Paresh Chandra Chakraborty and Ex.P-19 is the agreement/undertaking signed by Sadiq Ali drafted by his counsel Shri Ranvir Singh. Ex.P- \ ^..s^ts-i'' ^^ ^p^..^:: ,- 14 20 to P-24 are the sale-deeds in favour of Smt. Neeta Mathur, Subodh Shrivastava, Smt. Rashmi Shrivastava,Brijesh Kumar Sinha and Smt. Sangeeta Singh, respectively. Ex.P-25 is the legal notice sent to defendant Sadiq Ali. Ex.P-26 and P-27 are the postal receipts and the acknowledgments and Ex.P-28 is the original unregistered power of attorney executed by Sadiq Ali in favour of Ashfak Ahmed Khan. Ex.P-29 is the invitation card in which names of theplaintiff N.A.Khan and the defendant Sadiq Ali are mentioned. Ex.P-28 (Repeat) is the application submitted under the signatures of Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali before the Tahsildar informing him that because of differences the earlier power of attorney executed and registered bythem in favour ofAAKhan on 19-1-1995 have been cancelled by them on 9-2-1995. Ex.P-29 (Repeat) is the original envelope addressed to Patwari Vinod Kumar Tamboli in which the application written by Fariyad Ali and Afsar Ali to the Tahsildar (Ex.P-28 Repeat) was sent. 17. On the other hand, thedefendants have submitted documents as Ex.D-1, which is a power of attorney executed by Sadiq Ali in favour of Nawal Kishore Sharma authorising him to execute the sale- deed and it is by virtue of this power of attorney, Nawal