BIREN VAISHNAV,J. - (1.) Respondent No.2the original complainant is the uncle of the present applicants. The father of the respondent No.2, had properties at village Bhagal. The properties, five in number were partitioned amongst, the five sons, including the uncle of the applicants (respondent NO.2) and their father as under:JUDGEMENT_139_LAWS(GJH)8_2017_1.html By way of an internal family arrangement in the year 2002 the properties were further partitioned whereby, House No. 510 with Plot No. 534 of the complainant went to the share of the applicants' father as against which the father relinquished his 20% share in a Mumbai property. On 2.01.2004, the applicants' father partitioned his both properties by executing a partition deed. ? House No. 510 / plot No. 534 came in favour of applicant No.1 ? House No. 509 / Plot No. 535 came to the share of applicant No.2. On an application being made to the Gram Panchayat concerned, the Gram Panchayat on 31.12.2004 resolved and entered the names of the present applicants in the records of the Panchayat indicating that the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were in rightful possession and had rightful title of these properties in question. From an additional affidavit filed by the applicant, it is evident that this resolution was challenged by the complainantrespondent No.2 before the Competent Court, in such challenge the complainant failed.
(2.) It has further come on record that the complainant's son Sabedullah Hanif had tried to disturb the peaceful possession and title of the applicants herein in respect of the properties in question, as a result of which, the present applicant No.1 was constrained to approach the Police Inspector, Palanpur, by filing an appropriate complaint on 07.10.2010.
(3.) It is also apparent from the affidavit made in the application that taking undue advantage of the ignorance of the mother of the accused and the sister, the respondent No.2original accused obtained signature of applicant No.1, his mother and sisters. Power of Attorney so obtained was used to file an arbitration petition before the Bombay High Court purporting to settle business dispute between the complainant's brother Mohd. Yasin and the applicantsone of the accused before the Bombay High Court. It is the case of the applicants that, this arbitration petition was filed before the Bombay High Court under a forged Power of Attorney without authority of law. Before the Bombay High Court, the applicant No.1 filed an affidavit on 29.09.2010 categorically denying that they had authorized by any Power of Attorney for filing such an arbitration petition.;