Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) This appeal is against the judgment of partial reversal. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the property being plot No. 636 on the basis of his purchase from the admitted owners, Reajuddin and Rahima Khatun on the 16th of January, 1958. The case made was that the deed of sale was executed by the constituted attorney of the said owners, defendant No. 2, Kalipada, who is the father of the plaintiff, on the basis of a general power dated the 17th of August, 1955, exhibit 4. The prayer was for declaration of title on the basis of the said purchase and confirmation of possession.
(2.) The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 4 to 7 who purchased the suit plot from defendant No. 1. Their case was that the aforesaid owners exchanged their plot No. 636 for plot No. 490 and this was recited in their general power of attorney dated the 22nd of February, 1955 which is exhibit D. In view of this clear recital which was an admission of exchange of the property in favour of defendants Nos. 1,2 and 3 it was submitted that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the property by purchase as the aforesaid owners had no longer any title to transfer to the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 but at the trial only defendants Nos. 1 and 4 to 7 contested. The learned Munsif decreed the suit on trial on evidence.
(3.) On appeal the appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the property and he was estopped from asserting his title in view of the admissions made by his vendors about the earlier exchange of the suit property in favour of the defendants against another property, as already indicated. Further the plaintiff had no possession to the suit property as would appear from the relevant entries in the record of rights. In this view of the matter the learned appellate Court varied the decree of the trial Court, declared plaintiff's interest in 2/3rd share in the disputed properties as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who view of the contest made by defendant No. 1 and his purchasers, defendants Nos. 4 to 7, the Court declared the plaintiff's title in respect of the 2/3rd share in the property excluding l/3rd share which it was held, had were owning the aforesaid share did not contest the suit at the hearing. In vested in defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in the mean time. The appeal was allowed in part on contest. The plaintiff preferred this appeal against the aforesaid decree.;