: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.455 OF 2009 Shri Shekhar Sahadeo Mhaske ... Appellant V/s. Shri Jaideep Pukhraj Jain & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.S. Apte i/b Mandar Limaye for Appellant Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b P.G. Chavan for Respondent No.6 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 6, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2009 rejecting the application at exhibit 5 and exhibit 47. The case of the appellant plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit property bearing survey No.128 admeasuring 2 hectares 12 ares situated at village Charoli Budruk, Tal.: Haveli, Pune. According to the appellant, he has purchased this property from defendant Nos.2 to 5 who were the original owners of property. Defendant No.2 was the owner of this ancestral property together with his brother Damu and each of them was entitled to half a share in the property. The appellant claimed that the sale deed and the confirmation deed dated 2.6.2001 by which the aforesaid property was sold by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.6 should be cancelled. Defendant No.1 who claimed to be the constituted attorney of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Damu sold the property to himself. Admittedly, Damu died in 1995 and the sale has taken place thereafter. After selling the property to himself, defendant No.1 sold the property to defendant No.6. Defendant No.6 has created third party rights in the aforesaid property. The appellant claims that he purchased : 2 : the property from Defendant Nos.2 to 5 by a registered sale deed dated 9.11.2004. The appellant claims that he was put into possession of the suit land pursuant to the agreement for sale being executed between the parties on 17.7.1996. The appellant has therefore, claimed an injunction against the defendants from disturbing his possession of the suit property. A further injunction is sought to restrain Defendant No.6 from creating third party rights in the property. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the impugned order needs to be set aside. There is material on record to indicate that defendant Nos.2 to 5 have denied having executed the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. Furthermore, after the death of Damu, it would appear that the power of attorney executed by him would no longer survive. Admittedly defendant No.1 had sold the suit property acting on the power of attorney and, therefore, prima facie, the sale of the property on the basis of this document cannot be accepted. Any subsequent sale would also be prima facie illegal. 3. However, the trial Court has found that there is no material on record to indicate that the appellant is in possession of the suit property and in fact there is possession receipt on record in favour of defendant No.6. 4. In these circumstances, Appeal from Order allowed. The Order passed by the trial Court is set aside. Defendant No.6 is restrained from creating any third party rights in respect of two hectares 85 ares in the southern portion of survey No.128.