Judgment : 1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 284/95, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) to the effect that Late Sh. Fateh Singh was having three wives including plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi and other two wives namely Smt. Chandrakala Devi and Smt. Madan Kanwar. The plaintiff No.1-Smt Dhapa Devi is having three sons namely Mohan Singh, Ratan Singh and Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh from wedlock of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh were having separate agricultural land and Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh being minor was living with his mother Smt. Dhapa Devi and father Late Sh. Fateh Singh. So, land admeasuring 63 bigha 7 biswa of Khasra No.438 situated in village Sankotda was recorded in the khadedari of plaintiffs and their names were entered through mutation on 05.10.1977. The plaintiffs were in possession of the said land. Late Sh. Fateh Singh was not happy with the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi and under the pressure of his other sons, he left the plaintiff No.1. Later on, plaintiffs came to know that Late Sh. Fateh Singh prepared forged Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs and on the basis of said forged Power of Attorney of plaintiffs, registered sale deed was executed on 27.08.77. The plaintiffs prayed that the Power of Attorney as well as sale deed was executed on account of forged documents, so it should be declared as null and void. 3. The defendants replied the averments of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi is not wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh and he had already given 15 bigha each to Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh. The present suit is not maintainable on account of Section 7 of the Family Court Act. So, plaint should be dismissed. 4. 3. The defendants replied the averments of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi is not wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh and he had already given 15 bigha each to Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh. The present suit is not maintainable on account of Section 7 of the Family Court Act. So, plaint should be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- D;k eq[r;kjukek vke fnukad 18-06-77 tkyh vkSj QthZ gS o oknhx.k mlls ikcUn ugha gS\ 1,& D;k okfnuh [kljk ua0 438 esa ls 63 ch?kk 7 fcLok Hkwfe dh Lokeh gS\ 2- D;k eq0 /kkik okfnuh o eq0 /kkik Mk;tokyh nks vyx vyx O;fDr gSa vkSj D;k oknh la0&nks dk uke vej flag ugha gSa cfYd vej flag okLro esa eq0 /kkik Mk;tokyh dk iq= gS\ 3- D;k okfnuh eq0 /kkik izfroknh la0&,d dh oS| ifRu gS vkSj oknh la0& nks izfroknh la0&,d dk oS| iq= gS\ 4- D;k okni= ds iSjk la0&12 esa of.kZr csukesa oknhx.k dh vksj ls fu"ikfnr fd, x,A vxj ,slk ugha gS rks D;k os csukesa csvlj gS fd izfroknh la0&,d dks mu csukeksa dks djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 4,& D;k oknxzLr lEifRr ij oknh dk dCtk ugha gS] dCtk dh izkFkZuk fd, fcuk o dksVZ Qhl fn;s fcuk oknh dk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 4ch& vk;k en ua0& 25 tokcnkok esa of.kZr rF; lgh gS o okfnuh dks /kkjk&7 QSeyh dksVZ ,DV ds vuqlkj vnkyr gktk dks nkok lquus dk Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha jgrk gS o okn xSjdkuwuh gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\ 6- vk;k tokcnkok dh en la0& 24 dk nkok ij D;k vlj gS\ 5. To prove its case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1-Dhapa Devi, PW2-Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh, PW3-Prabhu S/o Gyarsya, PW4-Prabhu S/o Jagannath, PW5-Jagdish, PW6-Ratan Singh and PW7-Mohan Singh. To prove its case, defendant examined himself as DW1-Fateh Singh, DW2-Jassu Khan and DW3-Pratap Singh. 6. After hearing the parties the trial court vide its order dated 27.05.97 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial court had committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Late Sh. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial court had committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Late Sh. Fateh Singh had sold the disputed land by way of Power of Attorney dated 18.06.77. It was proved that sale deed was executed by Late Sh. Fateh Singh but trial court had committed error in deciding the issue No.1 against the plaintiffs on the ground that the original Power of Attorney was not exhibited during the trial. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that original Power of Attorney was in possession of Late Sh. Fateh Singh, so the plaintiffs could not exhibit these documents during the trial, although, sale deed (Exhibit-1 to 4) were available on record and it was mentioned that these were executed on account of Power of Attorney. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that Plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi was illiterate lady and she never executed the Power of Attorney. It was obligatory on part of Late Sh. Fateh Singh to prove that he was having valid Power of Attorney in his favour for executing the sale deed (Exhibit-1 to 4). 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that disputed land was received by the plaintiffs by way of Family Settlement (Exhibit-14) that was proved during the evidence but trial court had not considered these facts. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi was not wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. Whereas the revenue record were also proved by the plaintiffs. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial court had committed error in relying on the voter list dated 3011.79 in which name of the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi was wrongly shown with Ganga Sahai. Later on the same entry was corrected and plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi was shown as wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh but trial court has not considered this fact. So, order passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed and sale deed executed by Late Sh. Fateh Singh be cancelled. 13. Fateh Singh but trial court has not considered this fact. So, order passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed and sale deed executed by Late Sh. Fateh Singh be cancelled. 13. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to exhibit the so-called Power of Attorney, which was executed by the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi in favour of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that it was not proved that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi was wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. So, trial court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 14. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as counsel for the defendants. 15. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs failed to exhibit the so-called Power of Attorney, which was allegedly executed by plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi in favour of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. The plaintiffs also failed to prove that the said Power of Attorney was forged one and on account of forged Power of Attorney, Late Sh. Fateh Singh had sold the disputed land. The plaintiffs also failed to prove that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi was wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh and also the Family Settlement (Exhibit-14) was not proved by them. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 16. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.