ORDER : 1. This appeal was admitted on 04.03.2015 for hearing on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether, the power of attorney holder Shiv Kumar and Mangal Sahu executed sale deeds in favour of their relatives despite the fact that the power of attorney did not describe the particulars of the immovable property and as such whether the sale was bad? 2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No.09-A/2012, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No.9-A/2004, has been affirmed. 3. The facts of the present case are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration, partition and separate possession. The declaration was sought to the effect that the sale deeds (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5) executed by power attorney holders; namely, Mangal, Shiv Kumar and Sonu are null and void, on the ground that no authority was given to them to alienate the property and the plaintiff never received the consideration amount. It is further pleaded that in the names of Ghusu Agrawal and Sonu Agrawal, a total of 21.18 acres of land detailed in Schedule A and 8 acres of land described in Schedule B, were recorded and there was no partition. Thus, the plaintiff sought relief of partition and separate possession of his share. It is further pleaded that registered power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Mangal and Shiv/defendants No.1 and 2 on 10.01.1986 vide Ex.D/1 to look after the entire property, but misusing the power of attorney, Mangal and Shiv Kumar sold the suit property to different persons. It is further pleaded that no authority was given to the power of attorney holders to sell the property, therefore, all the sale deeds executed vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5 be declared null and void. 4. Defendants No.1 and 3 to 10 filed their joint written statements and denied the plaint averments. Defendants No.3 and 4 are the power of attorney holders, whereas other defendants are purchasers of the property. Specific plea was taken by the defendants that due power of attorney was executed in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and by virtue of the power of attorney, the property of the plaintiff was alienated. Defendants No.3 and 4 are the power of attorney holders, whereas other defendants are purchasers of the property. Specific plea was taken by the defendants that due power of attorney was executed in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and by virtue of the power of attorney, the property of the plaintiff was alienated. According to the power of attorney, the right was conferred upon defendants No.3 and 4 to mortgage, sell or gift the entire property of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the purchasers of the property are bona fide purchasers. 5. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get ½ share of the property described in Schedule A and to get 1/3rd share of the property described in Schedule B. It is further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the partition of the suit land. Further, the power of attorney holders have the right to sell the property and the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly thus, the learned trial Court dismissed the civil suit. 6. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2012 affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Mr. R. S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that in the power of attorney, no authority was given to defendants No. 3 and 4 to sell the property and there was no description of the property to sell, which was sine qua non for the execution of a due power of attorney. He would further argue that the Courts below have committed an error of law in dismissing the suit when the property belongs to the plaintiff, and there was no partition. He would also argue that the Courts below have committed a mistake in not considering the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff. He further argues that the power of attorney holders executed sale deeds in favour of their relatives which are against the law. He would also argue that the Courts below have committed a mistake in not considering the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff. He further argues that the power of attorney holders executed sale deeds in favour of their relatives which are against the law. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in ‘Smt. Yashoda Bai and another v. Smt. Sundar Bai and others’, FA No.153 of 2007, decided on 02.04.2008, wherein in para-8, it was held that if the description of entire immovable property is not mentioned in the power of attorney, such instrument cannot be used by their holders against the interest of the owner of the property. 8. On the other hand, Mr Amit Sahu would submit that according to Schedule A, the property was recorded in the names of plaintiff and original defendant No.1 Sonu whereas, the property detailed in Schedule B was recorded in the names of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2, but there is no revenue record to establish that the property detailed in Schedules A and B, were recorded in the names of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. He would further submit that registered power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and an authority was given to the power of attorney holders to mortgage, sell or gift the entire property. He would further argue that though the description of the property is not given in the power of attorney, respondents No.3 and 4 were authorized to look after and take all decisions with regard to the entire property belonging to the plaintiff; therefore, they were authorized to alienate the entire property. He would also argue that the sale deed Ex.P/1 was executed by defendant No. 3 on 18.11.1986 in favour of Mangal Sahu; sale deed Ex.P/2 was executed by defendant No.3, power of attorney holder on 25.11.1986; sale deed Ex. P/3 was executed by defendants No.3 and 4 on 10.03.1987 in favour of Shivkumar; sale deed Ex.P/4 was executed by Mangal Ram Sahu and Sonu Agrawal in favour of Ramkumari on 10.03.1987, whereas, the sale deed Ex.P/5 was executed by Sonu alone on 10.03.1987. He would also submit that the plaintiff in the plaint has not stated anywhere that the property mentioned in the sale deeds was ever recorded in the name of the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff in the plaint has not stated anywhere that the property mentioned in the sale deeds was ever recorded in the name of the plaintiff. He would further contend that there is no document to demonstrate which part of the suit property stated in Schedule A was recorded in the name of the plaintiff or Sonu. He would also contend that sale deed Ex.P/ 5 was executed by Sonu alone in favour of Topu on 10.03.1987, whereas the sale deed has been challenged by the plaintiff pleading that the sale deed Ex.P/ 5 was executed by power of attorney holders on 10.03.1997. He emphasized that none of the sale deeds was executed in favour of the relatives of defendants No.3 and 4 and there is no evidence in this regard. He would lastly submit that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgments. 10. I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 11. From a perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 on 10.01.1986; as per clause-8 of the power of attorney, it authorizes the holders to mortgage, sell and gift the entire property. 12. It is apparent from a perusal of the power of attorney that the description of the entire property is not given in the instrument. Even though, in clear terms, it is stated that defendants No.3 and 4 were authorized to take care of or mortgage or sell the entire property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his evidence has categorically stated that the power of attorney was executed by him in favour of defendants No.3 and 4; thus, he has admitted the due execution of the power of attorney, but in his evidence, he has stated that defendants No.3 and 4 without any authority alienated the property whereas, from a bare perusal of the power of attorney, it is apparent that they were authorized to alienate the property. 13. 13. Now coming to the sale deeds executed by defendants No.3 and 4, power of attorney holders, it is apparent that Ex.P/1 was executed by Mangal Sahu in favour of Ramkumar on 18.11.1986; sale deed Ex.P/2 was executed by Shivkumar in favour of Onkar Singh on 25.11.1986; sale deed Ex.P/3 was executed by Shiv Kumar in favour of Maikul Bai on 10.03.1987; sale deed Ex.P/4 was executed by Mangalram in favour of Rajkumari on 10.03.1987, and sale deed Ex.P/5 was executed by Sonu, defendant No.1 alone in favour of Topu on 10.03.1987. 14. From a perusal of these sale deeds, it appears that the property was recorded in the names of the plaintiff as well as Sonu, therefore, some of the sale deeds were executed by the power of attorney holders and Sonu and one of the sale deeds was executed by defendant No.1/Sonu alone. But, original defendant No.1/Sonu has not challenged the sale deed executed by him in favour of different persons, and only, the plaintiff has challenged it on the ground that the power of attorney holders were not authorized to alienate the property. 15. At this juncture it is relevant to mention here that the law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1982 as well as by the provisions contained under Order III of the C.P.C. These provisions give legal power to an agent to exercise the defined acts and powers in terms of the executed power of attorney. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others v. M. Chinniyan and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 296 in para-36 which reads thus:- 36. The law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1982. It is well settled therein that an agent acting under a power of attorney always acts, as a general rule, in the name of his principal. Any document executed or thing done by an agent on the strength of power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done in the name of principal i.e. by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the principal. An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the principal. Any act or thing done by the agent on the strength of power of attorney is, therefore, never construed or/and treated to have been done by the agent in his personal capacity so as to create any right in his favour but is always construed as having done by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, never gets any personal benefit of any nature. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 held in paras 20 and 21 as under: (SCC pp. 666-67) “20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee. 21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 & 101, paras 13 & 52) ‘13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. * * * 52. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. * * * 52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee.’ An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor.” 16. From a perusal of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the power of attorney holder has the right to exercise his power given in the power of attorney but he cannot use such power for his own benefit or his near relatives. 17. In the present case though there is the allegation that the power of attorney holders alienated the property in favour of their near relatives, but there is no evidence in this regard. Though there is no detail of the property as argued by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant in the power of attorney, defendants No.3 and 4 were authorized to look after or to alienate the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were not authorized to exercise power as exercised by them while selling some part of the property. Further, the sale deeds were executed by defendants Nos.3 and 4 in the years 1986 and 1987, but the plaintiff filed a suit after two years on 15.03.1987 when he came to know about the execution of the sale deeds. Further, the sale deeds were executed by defendants Nos.3 and 4 in the years 1986 and 1987, but the plaintiff filed a suit after two years on 15.03.1987 when he came to know about the execution of the sale deeds. Further, there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and the Courts below have discussed the entire evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that no case is made out in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court, the Courts below have not committed any error of law, and the defendants No.3 and 4; power of attorney holders, have not alienated the suit property in favour of their near relatives or for their own benefit. Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered in negative. 18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.