Defendants of the Property Power Act (1882), Section 41 of the Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17 and 79 suits the Prohibition of Power of Attorney for the declaration of purchase from the unauthorized owner by the lawyer seizing the sale of their land. did it. That is, they did not execute the Attorney High Court of any jurisdiction in the jurisdiction of the affirmation. This case was presented to only one minor witness and even examined that they only identified the defendants. Was called for and no money was given in his presence. They did not present any evidence by the accused as to why the other extraordinary witnesses were not presented under section 41 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882, hence their application to the matter being heard. Which led to a brief investigation by the defendants. It was claimed about this land that only a few days were spent in the process of attorney and sale of power. They should be vigilant of the transaction and so, especially when the parties were residents of the same area, the defendants could not be regarded as highly valued buyers so as to secure protection under Section 41 of the transfer property. Defendants could not prove a lawyer's authority in this. For this reason, the appeal of the sale and sale transaction could not be allowed
