purely civil dispute. Further, the opposite party no. 2, has himself admitted that the payment he gave to the petitioners was after the last registration/sale of land through the opposite party no. 2, for which an excuse is created that as opposite party no. 2 is not a well read person, he did not see that instead of putting the date as 2011, 2010 was written. This excuse cannot be accepted. Further, the law relating to power of attorney is well settled. It is at the discretion of the executor and he has full authority to revoke such power of attorney at any point of time without assigning any reason. Moreover, since the opposite party no. 2 has not shown any payment made by him and accepted by the petitioners, after the revocation of power of attorney in his favour for the lands in question; for establishing such payment and for getting the right to deal with the remaining lands, can only be granted by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The addition that at gun point, certain papers were got signed by the petitioners from the opposite party no. 2, clearly, in the opinion of the Court, is an ingenious addition only to add serious sections and to give some criminal colour to the story. The same appears to be totally unbelievable and improbable.
