- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22679 RFA No. 478 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 478 OF 2019 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD NO.999, KHATA NO.7020/1822, JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR, JNANA BHARATHI, MALLATHAHALLI, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI. AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.T.S.93, 5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, AZADNAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUDEEP.N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.DHIRAJ KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B.S.SUMATHA D/O D.SRIRAM, C/O MR. LOKANATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. SMT. B.R.KANTHAMA D/O D.SRIRAM, C/O MR. LOKANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22679 RFA No. 478 of 2019 BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.71, SAI QUARTERS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 056. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.4/37, 5TH CROSS, GNANAJYOTHI NAGAR, NEAR SKV CHOULTRY, GNANABHARATHI POST, BENGALURU-560 056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRIKANTH.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Sudeep. N.K., counsel on behalf of Sri.K. Dhiraj Kumar., for the appellant and Sri.Raghavendra.V., counsel on behalf of Sri.Srikanth.M., for the respondents, have appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for admission with the consent of counsel for the respective parties, it is heard. 3. This is an appeal from the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22679 RFA No. 478 of 2019 4. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 5. The short facts are these: One Smt.Susheela purchased the schedule property from one Ashwath Ramegowda on 11.03.1981. It is stated that Smt.Susheela executed a power of attorney in favor of one Mr.R.Ravindran on 26.09.1997. Smt.Susheela died on 12.07.2000. The GPA Holder R.Ravindran sold the property in favor of one K.Balu on 14.02.2001 and appears to have executed a rectification deed in favor of K.Balu on 29.05.2003. Mr.K.Balu sold the property in favor of Sri.Atul Kumar on 21.04.2004, who in turn sold the property in favor of the plaintiff on 22.09.2008. Contending that the defendants interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of an declaration, injunction and possession. After service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22679 RFA No. 478 of 2019 Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2018 dismissed the suit. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 6. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments. 7. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The plaintiff contended that he had purchased the property from one Atul Kumar under a registered sale deed. What is required to be considered is whether Smt.Susheela had executed a power of attorney in favor of R.Ravindran, and the holder had the power to deal with the property. The answer is No. The reason is simple. There is nothing on record to show that Smt.Susheela had executed a power of attorney in favor of R.Ravindran. Assuming for a while that there is a power of attorney, but Smt.Susheela died on 12.07.2000. Hence, the alleged attorney-in-fact could not have acted as a power of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22679 RFA No. 478 of 2019 attorney and dealt with the property. Needless to say, once the principal dies, the relationship ceases. The Trial Court extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed the suit. I find no merit in admitting the appeal and interfering with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merit, and the same is liable to be rejected. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is rejected at the stage of admission. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35.1