JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Dharmendra Barathwal, counsel for the appellants and Shri Lalit Tewari, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2006 passed by the District Judge, Haridwar in civil appeal no. 14 of 2003 as well as the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in Original Suit no. 28 of 1998. 3. Second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- “(a) As to whether Sale deed executed by valid power of attorney holder of Narsingh Dass can be questioned in view of Chapter X of India Contract Act by Narsingh Dass? (b) As to whether once suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.1.1992 was dismissed by both the courts below, was it not incumbent on the courts below to decree suit for injunction filed by the present appellants? (c) As to whether impugned judgment/decree are vitiated due to perverse findings recorded by both the courts below against the pleadings and evidence by placing burden of proof wrongly on the appellants?” 4. Briefly stated a suit no. 28 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffs Murti Devi and others praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property situate at land khasra no. 65/1/1 and khasra no. 64/4 i.e. part of total area 0.272 Hect. Which has been shown by the letters A.E.G.K.J.D. in the plaint map. 5. According to the ease of the plaintiffs, the defendant no. 1 was the owner in possession of the property shown in schedule ‘A’. The defendant no. 1 executed a power of attorney in favour of Shivpujan Singh on 1.1.1992 with regard to sale of the property of schedule ‘A’. The defendants have purchased the property of schedule ‘A’ from the power of attorney holder of the defendant no. 1, Shri Shivpujan Singh by way of registered sale deed dated 20.1.1992 and have become the owners in possession of the property in dispute. The property of schedule ‘A’ has been shown by the letters A.B.C.D. in the plaint map. The defendants have purchased the property of schedule ‘A’ from the power of attorney holder of the defendant no. 1, Shri Shivpujan Singh by way of registered sale deed dated 20.1.1992 and have become the owners in possession of the property in dispute. The property of schedule ‘A’ has been shown by the letters A.B.C.D. in the plaint map. The plaintiffs after purchasing the property of schedule ‘A’ sold the property, shown by letter B.C.D.E. in the plaint map, to Smt. Shyamlata Gaur by registered sale deed. The plaintiffs have also sold the property shown by the letters F.G.H.I. to Smt. Mohini Vajpayee and the property shown by the letters H.I.J.K. to Shri Atul Tandon. The plaintiffs and the purchasers are in possession of the land purchased by them. Smt. Shyamlata Gaur, Smt. Mohini Vajpayee and Shri Atul Tandon have constructed the boundary wall over the land purchased by them. It has been stated that the defendants have no right with the property shown in schedule ‘A’. The plaintiffs have started selling the property shown in schedule ‘A’ after dividing the same into small plots. The defendants are threatening the plaintiffs for their dispossession in collusion with the Kumbh Mela Police. The plaintiffs have asked the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. The plaintiffs have prayed as under :- ßvr% oknh izkFkhZ gS fd & ¼v½ fMxzh LFkk;h fu’ks/kkKk cgd oknhx.k fo#) izfroknhx.k bl vk”k; dh ikfjr dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k lEifÙk en ¼c½ ds oknhx.k ds “kkfUriw.kZ dCts o iz;ksx esa izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls dksbZ gLr{ksi u djs uk djkosA ¼c½ okn O;; vf/koDrk “kqYd lfgr oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼l½ vU; vuqrks’k ftls oknhx.k U;k;ky; dh jk; esa ikus ds vf/kdkjh gks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosAÞ 6. A written statement was filed by the defendant no. 1 wherein he has admitted his ownership and possession of the disputed land. The defendant no. 1 has denied the rest of the averments contained in the plaint., In the additional pleas, it has been denied that the defendant no. 1 had given any right in the power of attorney dated 1.1.1992 executed in favour of Shivpujan Singh with regard to sale of the disputed property. The defendant no. 1 has denied the rest of the averments contained in the plaint., In the additional pleas, it has been denied that the defendant no. 1 had given any right in the power of attorney dated 1.1.1992 executed in favour of Shivpujan Singh with regard to sale of the disputed property. It has also been denied that the defendants have become the owners in possession of the disputed property on the basis of sale deed dated 20.1.1992 executed by Shivpujan Singh, the power of attorney holder of the defendant no. 1. It has been submitted that it is wrong to say that the plaintiffs have sold some of the property to Smt. Shyamlata Gaur, Smt. Mohini Vajpayee and Shri Atul Tandon and they have constructed the boundary wall over their purchased land. The defendant no. 1 has submitted that he is a monk and has established an ashram known as Ajnam Doodhadhari Ashram situate at Mohalla Brahmpuri, Haridwar with an intention to serve the God and the humanity. In January, 1998, Shivpujan Singh started making construction without the permission of the defendant no. 1. When the defendant no. 1 asked Shivpujan Singh for the reason for making construction, he first kept deferring but later on the plaintiffs told that they have purchased the land in dispute. The defendant no. 1 visited the office of Sub-Registrar, Haridwar and got the copy of sale deed dated 16.1.1998. thereafter, he came to know about the cunningness of Shivpujan Singh. It has been alleged that Shivpujan Singh has executed the sale deed dated 20.1.1992 in favour of his wife and sons i.e. the plaintiffs. It has been submitted that the sale deed dated 20.1.1992 executed by Shivpujan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs is null and void and is liable to be cancelled. The defendant no. 1 has asked the plaintiffs to cancel the sale deed in question but the plaintiffs have denied to do that and threatened to occupy and make construction on the disputed property. It has been submitted that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act and the defendant no. 1 is entitled to get the special costs from the plaintiffs. 7. The plaintiffs have filed paper nos. 9 ga/1 to 9ga/2 i.e. certified copy of power of attorney dated 8.1.1992, paper nos. It has been submitted that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act and the defendant no. 1 is entitled to get the special costs from the plaintiffs. 7. The plaintiffs have filed paper nos. 9 ga/1 to 9ga/2 i.e. certified copy of power of attorney dated 8.1.1992, paper nos. 10 ga/1 to 10ga/4 i.e. certified copy of sale deed dated 20.1.1992, paper no. 11 ga copy of khatauni 1404 to 1409, paper no. 12 ga original khasra 405 fasli, paper nos. 36 ga/1 to 36 ga/3 i.e. certified copy of plaint filed in suit no. 42 of 1992 in the court of Munsif, Haridwar Rajesh v. Narsingh Dass, paper nos. 37 ga/1 to 37 ga/3 written statement filed in suit no. 42 of 1992 dated 23.3.1995, paper nos. 40 ga/1 to 40 ga/2 i.e. certified copy of report of Amin dated 8.2.1998. 8. The trial court vide order dated 10.5.2001 connected the suit no. 18 of 1998 with the suit no. 28 of 1998. Suit no. 18 of 1998 was treated as leading case and, as such, the evidence was recorded in case no. 18 of 1998 wherein on behalf of Mahamandaleshwar, Yogiraj as P.W.1, Mahand Raghunandan Dass as P.W.2, Mahamandaleshwar Narsingh Dass as P.W.3. On behalf of the defendants, Shivpujan Patel as D.W.1, Bhishm Patel as D.W.2, Pahal Singh Verma, Advocate as D.W.3 and Bishwanath as D.W.4 have been examined. 9. On the pleadings of both the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues :- ß1- D;k oknhx.k lEifÙk en ßcÞ tks fd [kljk uañ 65@1@1] 64@4 ,oa 63@4 ftls okn&i= ds uD”kk uthjh esa v{kj ,-bZ-th-ds- ts-Mh- ls fn[kk;k x;k gS] ds ekfyd dkfct gSa\ 2- D;k iz”uxr lEifÙk ds laca/k esa f”koiwtu iVsy ds }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fd;k x;k cSukek fof/k fo#) ,oa “kwU; gS\ 3- D;k okn /kkjk 10 lh-ih-lh- ls ckf/kr gS\ 4- D;k okn /kkjk&41 fof”k’V vuqrks’k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\ 5- D;k oknh vU; fdlh vuqrks’k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 10. While deciding issue no. While deciding issue no. 1, the trial court has recorded the finding that Shivpujan Singh had no right to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiffs on the basis of power of attorney dated 1.1.1992 and the sale deed dated 20.1.1992 has been executed without having any right and without taking any consideration and, as such, the alleged sale deed is null and void. 11. While deciding issue no. 2, the trial court has recorded the finding that the defendant no. 1 has succeeded to prove that he had not given the right to sell the disputed property to Shivpujan Singh and he has also succeeded in proving that the sale deed dated 20.1.1992 which has been executed by Shivpujan Singh in favour of his wife, son and daughter-in-law was executed without any consideration and Shivpujan Singh has not paid the amount of consideration to the defendant no. 1 after taking from the purchasers. The trial court has also held that the defendant no. 1 has succeeded to prove that in the year 1992, the value of the property was Rs. 15,00,000/- and the possession of the disputed property was not handed over to the purchasers. The trial court has also held that the sale deed has been executed by playing fraud and the same is null and void. 12. While deciding issue no. 4, the trial court has recorded the finding to the following effect :- ßi=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd eq[rkj vke f”koiwtu dks lEifÙk cspus dk vf/kdkj ugha fn;k FkkA U;k;ky; }kjk Åij ;g Hkh fu’d’kZ fn;k tk pqdk gS fd dfFkr cSukek fnukafdr 20-1-1992 lkft”k] /kks[kk&/kM+h vkSj fcuk izfrQy ds “kwU; o vfofèkd nLrkost gS rFkk ewfrZnsoh vkfn dfFkr QthZ nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij iz”uxr lEifÙk dh ekfyd] dkfct ugha gks ldrh gSA 13. With regard to the relief, the trial court has recorded the finding that the plaintiffs are not the bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute and it has been proved that no right has been given to Shivpujan Singh with regard to sale of the said property. The trial court has also recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have paid the consideration to the power of attorney holder, who have paid the same to the true owner of the property i.e. Mahamandaleshwar Narsingh Dass Doodhadhari. The trial court has also recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have paid the consideration to the power of attorney holder, who have paid the same to the true owner of the property i.e. Mahamandaleshwar Narsingh Dass Doodhadhari. The trial court has recorded the findings to the following effect :- ßokn la[;k 28@98 ewfrZnsoh cuke ujflagnkl esa oknhx.k ln~Hkkoh Øsrkx.k ugha gSa rFkk eq[rkjvke f”koiwtu tks fd izfroknh uañ 2 ds :i esa i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS] og oknhx.k@Øsrkx.k dk laca/kh gS vFkkZr og oknh uañ 1 ewfrZnsoh dk ifr rFkk oknh uañ 2 y{eh iVsy dk llqj o oknh uañ 3 Hkh’e flag iVsy dk firk gSA i=koyh ij ;g Hkh lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd eq[rkjukek esa foØ; djus dk vf/kdkj f”koiwtu iVsy dks fn;k tkuk lkfcr ugha gS] u gh oknhx.k ;g lkfcr djus esa lQy jgs gS fd Øsrkx.k us izfrQy /kujkf”k lEifÙk ds vly ekfyd vkSj ujflagnkl nw/kk/kkjh dks vnk dj nh xbZ gSA i=koyh ij dfFkr cSukek rFkk eq[rkjukek dks lkft”kh rFkk /kks[kk&/kM+h] vfof/kd] “kwU; nLrkost djkj fn;k tk pqdk gSA vr% “kwU; nLrkost gksus ds vk/kkj ij Øsrkx.k dks dksbZ vf/kdkj iz”uxr lEifÙk esa ckcr feyfd;rh ,oa dCtk izkIr ugha gksrs gSaAÞ 14. On the basis of the aforesaid, the trial court has dismissed the suit. 15. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs went in appeal. The appellate court has recorded the finding that Shivpujan Singh was only vested with the right to look after the disputed property and he had no right to sell the disputed property on the basis of power of attorney dated 1.1.1992 executed in his favour. The appellate court has recorded the finding that the execution of sale deed by Shivpujan Singh in favour of his wife, son and daughter-in-law just after twenty days from getting the power of attorney in his favour, creates suspicion over the character of Shivpujan Singh. The appellate court has recorded the finding that the execution of sale deed by Shivpujan Singh in favour of his wife, son and daughter-in-law just after twenty days from getting the power of attorney in his favour, creates suspicion over the character of Shivpujan Singh. The appellate court has recorded the finding to the following effect :- ßi=koyh ds ifj”khyu ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd f”koiwtu flag iVsy ds i{k esa tks eq[R;kjukek fy[kk x;k Fkk og oknxzLr lEifÙk ds ns[kHkky ds fy, fy[kk x;k Fkk vkSj iz”uxr lEifÙk dks foØ; djus ds fy, ugha fy[kk x;k FkkA ekU; rkSj ij oknhx.k vihykUV f”koiwtu flag eq[kR;kjs vke iRuh] iq= rFkk iq=o/kw gSaA eq[kR;kjukek fy[ks tkus dh frfFk ls 20 fnu dh vof/k esa oknhx.k vihykUV ds i{k esa f”koiwtu flag }kjk foØ; foys[k djuk Lo;a f”koiwtu flag ds pfj= dks lafnX/k djrk gSA i=koyh ds ifj”khyu ls ;g Hkh fofnr gksrk gS fd tks foØ; foys[k ds vk/kkj ij oknhx.k vihykUV dk uke iz”uxr lEifÙk ij vafdr djus dk vkns”k gqvk Fkk og fujLr fd;k tk pqdk gSA i=koyh ij tks foØ; foys[k gS] mlds laca/k esa LVkEi isij fnukad 31-5-92 dks [kjhns x;s vkSj jlhn fnukad 26-5-1992 dks fy[kh x;h tcfd cSukek fnukad 20-1-92 dks gks pqdk FkkA ;g bl rF; dks nf”kZr djrk gS fd f”koiwtu flag ,oa ujflag nkl ds lEcU/k vPns Fks vkSj mlh lEcU/k dk ifj.kke eq[kR;kjukek gSA xokgksa ds c;ku esa ;g ckr vk;h gS fd foØ; foys[k ds ckn dCtk ds fy, Øsrkx.k ujflag nkl ds ikl x;s Fks tks bl ckr dk |ksrd gS fd orZeku okn ds oknhx.k dk foØ; foys[k ds ckn ml ij dCtk ugha Fkk vkSj dCtk ujflag nkl dk gh FkkA ,slh fLFkfr eas oknhx.k vihykUV ds okn dks fujLr djds fo}ku flfoy tt ofj’B izHkkx us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gSAÞ 16. On the basis of aforesaid, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 17. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the civil appeal no. 12 of 2003 filed by the Mahamandaleshwar Narsingh Dass against the appellants has been dismissed and the sale deed in favour of the appellants has been held to be valid, the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants is liable to be decreed. 18. The appellate court in civil appeal no. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the civil appeal no. 12 of 2003 filed by the Mahamandaleshwar Narsingh Dass against the appellants has been dismissed and the sale deed in favour of the appellants has been held to be valid, the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants is liable to be decreed. 18. The appellate court in civil appeal no. 12 of 2003 has recorded the findings to the following effect:- ßi=koyh ij tks izys[kh; lk{; gSa og bl rF; dks nf”kZr djrh gS fd oknh vihykUV dks foØ; foys[k dh tkudkjh o’kZ 1994 esa gh gks x;h Fkh] exj mlus okn o’kZ 1999 esa ;ksftr fd;kA okn ;ksftr djus dh vof/k rhu o’kZ Fkh] foyEc dks {kek fd;s tkus laca/kh dksbZ izkFkZuk i= i=koyh ij fo|eku ugha gSA ,slh n”kk esa oknh vihykUV ds okn dks dkyckf/kr dgrs gq, fujLr djds flfoy tt ofj’B izHkkx gfj}kj us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV ugah dh gS vkSj ml fLFkfr esa oknh vihykUV dh bl vihy esa dksbZ cy ugha gS vkSj cyghu gksus ds dkj.k mldh vihy fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSAÞ 19. In Bhandari Construction Co. v. Narayan Gopal Upadhye reported in (2007) 3 SCC 163, it has been held that it is impossible to lead evidence to contradict its terms in view of Section 91 of the Evidence Act if the terms of the transaction are reduced to writing. The observation of the Apex Court is quoted below :- “15. When the terms of the transaction are reduced to writing, it is impossible to lead evidence to contradict its terms in view of Section 91 of the Evidence Act.” 20. In view of the aforesaid, the substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal are decided in favour of the appellants. Second appeal, therefore, is liable to be allowed. 21. Consequently, second appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.