JUDGMENT 1. This first appeal has been filed under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 29.8.2002 passed by First Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.8-A of 2000 by which, the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that original plaintiff No.1 Sarmania died during pendency of the civil suit whereas, respondent No.2 is the legal heir of the plaintiff No.2 Devi Singh who died during pendency of this appeal. 3. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Original plaintiff Sarmania and Devi Singh were mother and son. Agricultural land bearing Araji No.632/1 area 1.54 Hectares whose new Survey No. is 651 area 0.98 hectares, Survey No.652 area 0.29 hectares and Survey No.654 area 0.29 Hectares total area 1.54 hectares belonged to the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania. The aforesaid land is situated in village Janakpur Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior. It was pleaded that after the death of husband of plaintiff No.1 Sarmania, the plaintiff No.1 remained in possession and became title holder of the said land. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land being owner of the land in dispute. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 has already sold the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.354/2, 381/1 and 651/2 by registered sale deed dated 30.9.1991 to the real brother of the defendant No.1 namely Hazari Singh which is not subject matter of the dispute. But since this fact is necessary for the just decision of the case, therefore, it was mentioned in the plaint. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 had come to Tahsil Dabra on 30.9.1991 for executing the sale deed in favour of Hazari Singh in respect of the land mentioned above. At that time, the defendant No.1 in connivance with his real brother Hazari Singh got the thumb impression of the plaintiff No.1 on an additional stamp paper and thereafter got a general power of attorney typed on the said stamp paper and got the said power of attorney notarized on 30.9.1991. At that time, the defendant No.1 in connivance with his real brother Hazari Singh got the thumb impression of the plaintiff No.1 on an additional stamp paper and thereafter got a general power of attorney typed on the said stamp paper and got the said power of attorney notarized on 30.9.1991. It was further pleaded that when the plaintiff No.1 had gone to Dabra to execute the sale deed in favour of Hazari Singh real brother of defendant No.1,then, there was no need for the plaintiff No.1 to execute the general power of attorney. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 executed a sale deed dated 14.2.2000 on the basis of the forged power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 in favour of defendant No.2 who is son of Hazari Singh. It was pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 had never authorized defendant No.1 to execute any sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and if the intention of the plaintiffs was to sell the land, then they could have got the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1 on 30.9.1991 itself. Thus, it was pleaded that the sale deed dated 14.2.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is invalid because, the said sale deed has been executed on the strength of a forged power of attorney dated 30.9.1991. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 had never given any authority to the appellant No.1 to execute the sale deed. No consideration amount was paid by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiffs have never handed over possession of the land in dispute to the defendants. It was further pleaded that about 8 days prior to the filing of the suit, the defendants tried to cultivate the land and they also threatened the plaintiffs that since the sale deed has been executed, therefore, they will not allow the plaintiffs to cultivate the land. Accordingly, it was submitted that cause of action for filing the suit arose on 23.5.2000. As the State was made proforma defendant and no prayer was made against the State, therefore, no notice is required to be served under section 80 of CPC. Accordingly, it was submitted that cause of action for filing the suit arose on 23.5.2000. As the State was made proforma defendant and no prayer was made against the State, therefore, no notice is required to be served under section 80 of CPC. Thus, a prayer was made that it be declared that the plaintiffs are owner and in possession of the land in dispute and the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 is a forged document and consequently, the sale deed dated 14.2.2000 is also void ab initio and it was prayed that the permanent injunction be issued against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. 4. Appellants/defendants filed their written statement and pleaded that on 30.9.1991, the plaintiff No.1 had come to Dabra Tahsil for execution of the sale deed in favour of Hazari Singh, real brother of defendant No.1. It was further pleaded that in fact, on the instruction of the plaintiff No.1 itself, the power of attorney was executed and on the strength of the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991, the sale deed has been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 who is son of Hazari Singh, the real brother of defendant No.1. It was further pleaded that as the plaintiff did not challenge the said power of attorney within a period of three years, therefore now she cannot challenge the same. It is incorrect to say that no consideration amount was paid to the plaintiff No.1. It was further stated that the possession was already handed over to the defendant No.1 on 30.9.1991 i.e. after receiving full consideration amount. It is further denied that the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff about 8 days prior to the date of filing of the civil suit. The court-fee has not been paid in accordance with law. The plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court-fee. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff No.2 has not clarified that in what capacity he has locus to challenge the sale deed as he is neither party to the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 nor he is a party to the sale deed dated 14.2.2000. 5. The plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court-fee. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff No.2 has not clarified that in what capacity he has locus to challenge the sale deed as he is neither party to the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 nor he is a party to the sale deed dated 14.2.2000. 5. The trial Court framed followings issues:- ^^Ø okniz'u fu"d"kZ ¼1½ D;k izfrŒ ØŒ 1 us fnukad 30-9-1991 dks oknh ØŒ 1 dk vius i{k esa oknxzLr Hkwfe ds fy, ipkZ eq[r;kjukek rS;kj fd;k\ gk¡ ¼2½¼v½ D;k izfrŒ ØŒ 1 us oknh ØŒ 1 ds ithZ eq[R;kjukek  ds vk/kkj ij izfrŒ ØŒ 2 ds i{k esa fnukad 14-2-2000  dks oknxzLr Hkwfe dk itkZ foØ;i= iath;r  djk;k gS\ gk¡ ¼2½¼c½ D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe ds iath;r foØ;i= fnukad 14-2-2000 ds Øe esa oknhx.k dks dksbZ izfrQy  izkIr ugha gqvk\ izHkko\ gk¡ ¼3½ D;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr Hkwfe ls QtkZ foØ;i=  ds vk/kkj ij oknhx.k dks vkf/kiR;P;qr djus gsrq iz;Ru'khy gSa\ ;fn gk¡ rks D;k muds fo#) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ gk¡ ¼4½ D;k okn vof/k ckg~; gksus ls Jo.k ;ksX; ugha gS\ ugha ¼5½ D;k oknhx.k us okn ewY;kadu ds vuq:i ,M oyksje U;k;'kqYd u iVk;s tkus ij okn  mlh voLFkk ij fujLruh; gS\ ugha ¼6½ D;k okn esa i{kdkjksa ds dqla;kstu dk nks"k gS\ ugha ¼7½ D;k Dys'knk;h okn oknhx.k us izLrqr fd;k gS\ ;fn gk¡ rks izfroknhx.k fo'ks"k gtkZ :i;s 10]000@& izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ugha ¼8½ lgk;rk ,oa O;;\ vafre in vuqlkjA** 6. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 was not executed by the plaintiff No.1 and in fact, it was a forged power of attorney and consequently the sale deed dated 14.2.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is void ab initio and no consideration amount was paid to the plaintiffs while executing the sale deed dated 14.2.2000 and on the basis of the forged sale deed, the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs and the suit is not barred by limitation and the proper Court fee has been paid. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 7. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 7. Challenging the correctness and propriety of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in it's true perspective. Devi Singh (PW1) has specifically stated that two Bigha of agricultural land was sold by Sarmania about 10 years back to Hazari Singh. At the time of execution of the said sale deed, defendant No.1 by playing fraud on the plaintiff No.1 obtained her thumb impression on the blank stamp paper which was subsequently used for preparing a forged power of attorney and thereafter, executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 Ramaresh whereas, consideration amount was also not paid to the plaintiff No.1. It was further stated by Devi Singh (PW1) that he is still in possession of the land in dispute and the defendants are trying to take forcible possession of the said land. In cross-examination this witness has specifically denied that on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the Hazari Singh, Sarmania had also executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.1. He further denied that the possession of the land in dispute was also handed over on the said date. He further denied that the defendant No.2 is in possession of the land in dispute. He further denied that the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania had received a consideration amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from the defendant No.1 Lachchhiram. 8. Nihal Singh (PW2) has specifically stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute and they have never seen the defendants cultivating the land. 9. Omprakash (PW3) has also given the similar evidence. Anand Chaturvedi (PW4) is an employee posted in the registration office at Dabra who has proved the sale deed in favour of Hazari Singh Ex.P-17 executed on 30.9.1991 at 2.30 p.m. 10. Lachchhiram (DW1) has stated that on 30.9.1991 the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania had executed a power of attorney in his favour and he had paid Rs.1 lac to Sarmania and Hazari Singh had paid Rs.31,300/- to Sarmania. This witness has also admitted that he has received Rs.2,60,000/- from Hazari Singh who is father of the defendant No.2. Lachchhiram (DW1) has stated that on 30.9.1991 the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania had executed a power of attorney in his favour and he had paid Rs.1 lac to Sarmania and Hazari Singh had paid Rs.31,300/- to Sarmania. This witness has also admitted that he has received Rs.2,60,000/- from Hazari Singh who is father of the defendant No.2. This witness has also stated that the possession was given by the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania on 30.9.1991 and after execution of the sale deed on 14.2.2000, this witness has handed over possession to the defendant No.2. In crossexamination, this witness has stated that for the purposes of the execution of the sale deed, they came to Dabra at about 8 in the morning from Gwalior. They went to Gwalior for the purposes of execution of power of attorney on 30.9.1991 and thereafter, they came back to Dabra for the execution of the sale deed. This witness could not say about location of the office of Shri G.K.Katare. This witness has also stated that Sarmania plaintiff No.1 had taken an amount of Rs.1 lac from this witness. This witness has admitted that on 30.9.1991, the plaintiff No.1 had come to Dabra for the purpose of executing sale deed but denied that by playing fraud on the plaintiff No.1, obtained thump impression of Sarmania plaintiff No.1 on a blank stamp paper and therefore, he did not get power of attorney registered at Dabra and got it notarized at Gwalior. 11. Hazari Singh (DW2) has stated that initially, they came to Dabra to get the sale deed executed at Dabra. The sale deed was executed at 12 p.m., thereafter, they came back to Gwalior for the purposes of execution of the power of attorney because, lawyer for the purposes of execution of the power of attorney was not available at Dabra and from Gwalior, they came back by 2.30 p.m. This witness has stated that Lachchhiram (DW1) has paid Rs.1 lac to the plaintiff No.1. This witness has further admitted that Lakhan Singh is the witness of power of attorney as well as the sale deed and he is relative of this witness. This witness could not explain that why the power of attorney was not got executed at Dabra. This witness has further stated that he had not paid 1 lac in front of the Registrar. 12. This witness could not explain that why the power of attorney was not got executed at Dabra. This witness has further stated that he had not paid 1 lac in front of the Registrar. 12. Jagdish Singh (DW3) is the witness of sale deed Ex.P-2 which was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2. The evidence of this witness is not required to be considered in detail as the correctness of the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 is in dispute. Lakhan Singh is the witness of power of attorney dated 30.9.1991. Jagdish Singh (DW3) has admitted that Lakhan Singh is the son of brother in law of defendant No.1 Lachchhi. Lakhan Singh Yadav (DW4) has stated that they came to the office of the advocate at Gwalior where the defendant No.1 paid an amount of Rs.1 lac to the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania and thereafter, came back to Dabra. This witness also stated that he did not know whether any document was executed with regard to the payment of Rs.1 lac. This witness further stated that although he had read power of attorney but now he cannot recollect as to what was written on this power of attorney. 13. From the appreciation of evidence, it is clear that on 30.9.1991 plaintiff No.1 Sarmania had gone to Dabra for the purposes of execution of the sale deed in favour of Hazari Singh and accordingly, a sale deed was executed on 30.9.1991 in favour of Hazari Singh. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while the sale deed was being executed, the defendants by playing fraud had obtained thumb impression of the respondent No.1 on the blank stamp paper which was subsequently used for creating a forged power of attorney. The power of attorney Ex.D2-C was was got notarized from Shri G.K.Katare practicing at Gwalior. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while the sale deed was being executed, the defendants by playing fraud had obtained thumb impression of the respondent No.1 on the blank stamp paper which was subsequently used for creating a forged power of attorney. The power of attorney Ex.D2-C was was got notarized from Shri G.K.Katare practicing at Gwalior. The sale deed Ex.P1-C sale deed dated 30.9.1991 executed in favour of Hazari Singh is Ex.P1-C. From Ex.P1-C, it is clear that the sale deed was presented for the purposes of registration before the office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra, District Gwalior at 2.30 p.m. which clearly means that the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania was present at Dabra on 30.9.1991 at 2.30 p.m. Similarly, the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 which was got notarized at Gwalior is Ex.D2-C and according to the endorsement made by the Notary, the said document was notarized by the Notary at Gwalior on 30.9.1991 at 2.30 p.m. Thus, it is clear that the sale deed Ex.P1-C and power of attorney Ex.D/2-C were executed at 2.30 p.m. on 30.9.1991 at two different places i.e. Dabra and Gwalior respectively. 14. The defendants have not examined Shri G. K. Katare Notary in support of their evidence. The Register of Shri G. K. Katare has also not been produced to show that Sarmania plaintiff No.1 had appeared before the Notary on 30.9.1991 at 2.30 p.m. If the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania was really intending to execute the power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.1 then, they could have got it registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra itself. There was no need for that purpose to come to Gwalior for getting the power of attorney notarized. No explanation has been given by the defendants as to why they did not get the said power of attorney registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra itself. The defendants have also not examined stamp vendor to prove that the stamp papers were sold by them to Sarmania which was used for executing the power of attorney. Thus, it is clear that the sale deed Ex.P1-C which is undisputed document was executed at Dabra on 30.9.1991 at 2.30 p.m. whereas, power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 which is a disputed document was also executed on 30.9.1991 at Gwalior at 2.30 p.m. which is about 45 Kms. Thus, it is clear that the sale deed Ex.P1-C which is undisputed document was executed at Dabra on 30.9.1991 at 2.30 p.m. whereas, power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 which is a disputed document was also executed on 30.9.1991 at Gwalior at 2.30 p.m. which is about 45 Kms. from Dabra, therefore, it was not possible for the plaintiff No.1 to remain present at both the places at 2.30 p.m. itself. 15. Lachchhiram (DW1) has stated that he had paid Rs.1 lac to Sarmania plaintiff No.1 and Hazari Singh had paid Rs.31,300/- to Sarmania plaintiff No.1 whereas, Hazari Singh (DW2) does not say that he had paid any amount to Sarmania plaintiff No.1. There is no reference of payment of Rs.1 lac or Rs.31,300/- to Sarmania in the power of attorney Ex.D2-C. The defendants have also not produced any receipt of amount of Rs.1 lac or Rs.31,300/-. Thus, it is clear that there is no evidence on record that the defendant No.1 had ever paid any amount to Sarmania plaintiff No.1. Further, there is discrepancy with regard to the amount so paid to Sarmania. According to Lachchhiram (DW1) he had paid Rs.1 lac and Hazari Singh had paid Rs.31,300/- . Thus, it is clear that in all Rs.1,31,300/- was paid to the Sarmania whereas, Hazari Singh (DW2) did not say that he had ever paid any amount to Sarmania at the time of execution of the power of attorney. The defendants except by saying that they were placed in possession of the land in dispute after execution of the power of attorney Ex.D-1 but have not filed any document to show that name of Lachchhiram was mutated in the revenue record or he was shown to be in possession of the land in dispute. 16. There is another aspect of the matter. According to the defendants, Sarmania plaintiff No.1 had executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 Lachchhiram as Lachchhiram was not in possession of the sufficient amount for meeting registry charges. According to the defendants, the power of attorney was executed in the year 1991, then, there is nothing on record as to why, the defendants never requested the plaintiff No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1. According to the defendants, the power of attorney was executed in the year 1991, then, there is nothing on record as to why, the defendants never requested the plaintiff No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1. If the power of attorney is considered, then, it is clear that it is mentioned that the authority was given to the defendant No.1 to look after the Court cases as well as to receive advance payment or to execute the sale deed. If the defendant No.1 was given any authority to execute the sale deed on behalf of Sarmania plaintiff No.1, then, there is nothing on record to show that the consideration amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was passed on to Sarmania plaintiff No.1 by the defendant No.1 Lachchhiram. Further, it is case of the plaintiffs that the husband of Sarmania plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the property and after the death of husband of Sarmania, she got the property by way of succession. As per section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, class 1 heirs of the deceased male would inherit the property. 17. Accordingly, after the death of his father, Devi Singh also had equal share and therefore, Sarmania on her own could not have sold the entire property. Another important fact is that the land is situated in Village Janakpur, Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior and there is a office of Sub-Registrar at Dabra also. Janakpur is situated at the distance of one and half k.m. from Dabra and distance of Dabra from Gwalior is 50 Kms., it is thus, clear that the distance between Janakpur and Gwalior is 51½ Kms. Why the sale deed was executed at Gwalior and not at Dabra is also an important question which raises doubt about correctness and authenticity of this power of attorney. The defendants must have apprehended that in case if they execute the sale deed at Dabra, then, the plaintiffs may get an information of the execution of the sale deed dated 14.2.2000 and therefore, they may object. Thus, it appears that in order to take extra precaution, the sale deed was got registered at Gwalior on 14.2.2000 so that the plaintiffs may not get an information about execution of the sale deed of the land belonging to them. 18. Thus, it appears that in order to take extra precaution, the sale deed was got registered at Gwalior on 14.2.2000 so that the plaintiffs may not get an information about execution of the sale deed of the land belonging to them. 18. Thus, from the appreciation of evidence, it is clear that the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 was a forged document and the plaintiff No.1 Sarmania had never executed the said document giving authority to Lachchhiram (DW1) to execute the sale deed on behalf of Sarmania plaintiff No.1. No consideration amount was ever passed on to Sarmania plaintiff No.1 and even otherwise, Sarmnaia had no authority to sell the entire land which she had inherited from her husband along with her son. The manner in which, the sale deed Ex.P1-C and power of attorney Ex.D2-C are shown to have been executed clearly shows that the power of attorney could not have been executed at Gwalior at 2.30 p.m. on 30.9.1991 because, Sarmania plaintiff No.1 was present at Dabra on 30.9.1991 in the office of Sub-Registrar at 2.30 p.m. for the purpose of execution of the sale deed in favour of Hazari Singh and the same sale deed Ex.P1-C was also executed at 2.30 p.m. on 30.9.1991. Original title of the plaintiff has not been challenged by any of the parties. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Manjunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hanasi v. Tammanasa and others [ (2003)10 SCC 390 ], has held as under : “15. Forms 47 and 48 of the Appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribe the manner in which such averments are required to be made by the plaintiff. Indisputably, the plaintiff has not made any averment to that effect. He, as noticed hereinbefore, merely contended that he called upon defendant No.2 to bring defendant No.1 to execute a registered sale deed. Apart from the fact that the date of the purported demand has not been disclosed, admittedly no such demand was made upon defendant No.1. We may notice, at this juncture, that the plaintiff in his evidence admitted that defendant No.1 had revoked the power of attorney granted in favour of defendant No.2. In his deposition, he merely stated that such revocation took place after the agreement for sale was executed. We may notice, at this juncture, that the plaintiff in his evidence admitted that defendant No.1 had revoked the power of attorney granted in favour of defendant No.2. In his deposition, he merely stated that such revocation took place after the agreement for sale was executed. If he was aware of the fact that the power of attorney executed in favour of defendant No.2 was revoked, the question of any demand by him upon the defendant No.2 to bring the defendant No. 1 for execution of the agreement for sale would not arise at all. Further more, indisputably the said power of attorney was not a registered one. Defendant No.2, therefore, could not execute a registered deed of sale in his favour. The demand, if any, for execution of the deed of sale in terms of the agreement of sale could have been, thus, made only upon the Defendant No.1, the owner of the property. The balance consideration of Rs.10,000/also could have tendered only to Defendant No.1. As indicated hereinbefore, the purported notice was issued only on 8.8.1984, that is, much after the expiry of period of three years, within which the agreement of sale was required to be acted upon”. 20. Thus, it is clear that the defendant No.1 also could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 on the strength of the unregistered power of attorney. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiffs are the owner of the land in dispute and the power of attorney dated 30.9.1991 executed at 2.30 p.m. at Gwalior was a forged document and consequently, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 on 14.2.2000 is also not binding on the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is hereby affirmed. 21. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The decree may be drawn accordingly. No order as to the costs.