Articles 39 and 8 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art 91, 120, 142, 143 and 144 suit for the plaintiff to cancel the execution of the sale deed and seize the land. The plaintiff pleads that he did not appoint BB to be his general attorney. That the Attorney General's power in favor of power B favor was a fraudulent document, therefore, the sale of the designated sales deed by the defendant with the plaintiff's alleged general attorney's father and then the transfer of the suit land was void and liable to be canceled. Was 22 7 1972, but 5 12 1984, the claim was filed on the evidence that the plaintiff refused to appoint B his own general counsel, to prove that the plaintiff shifted Bector to his general attorney. The plaintiff was not appointed nor moved to the defendant. Neither the Power of Attorney nor its minor witnesses have been examined nor the trial court, despite the alleged Attorney General's and his father's residence, living in the same village and single house. The hearing was dismissed, despite the fact that it was found that the sold deed and the alleged general power of attorney were fraudulent documents. And that the defendant did not deliberately present the General Power of Attorney in evidence for the purpose of protecting his fraud, which led to the High Court ruling that the defendant was generally known as an attorney. Has failed to prove that, thus, it did not exist in the eyes of law after the sale agreement and the resulting transaction, which would be dealt with under Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, Not the question of limitation in a case like Article 91 or 120 of its legality
