- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1612 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIYAPPA V AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O VENKATA HANUMAIAH 2. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O V MUNIYAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MUDDANAPALYA, VISHVANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 091. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, R/AT MUDDANAPALYA, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.4.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.18/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.109/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. II CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.18/2013 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.109/2005 by the learned Principal II Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of plaintiff that the suit schedule property is a site property bearing No.59, Khata No.31, Assessment No.31 of Gidadakonenahalli village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. 4. It is contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He has purchased the same from one Rangaswamy, the GPA Holder of Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Mayanna, Venkatachala,Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumantharayappa under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2004 for a valuable consideration. Based on the said registered sale deed, revenue records were transferred to the plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 5. It is contended that earlier the land bearing Sy.No.31 of Gidadakonenahalli village measuring 5 acres 11 guntas was owned by Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Venkatachala, Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumantharayappa. The said owners and one M.Chandrashekar S/o Munivenkatappa formed a layout in the said land, i.e., Sy.No.31, and consisting of several sites with an understanding to sell the sites to prospective purchasers. It is contended that M.Chandrashekar sold site No.48 on 05/11/1990, and another site No.58 on 24.10.1990. 6. It is contended that, M.Chandrashekar knowing fully well that several sites have already been sold in favour of third parties, through him or original owners, he still obtained another sale deed dated 09.01.1991 regarding 4 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 through the original owners to defraud earlier purchasers. Defendant No.1 and M.Chandrashekar colluding with each other, created the GPA dated 04.12.1995 regarding the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 sites sold earlier in 1991. The sale deed dated 04.10.2004 came into existence regarding the suit schedule property, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, resulted from fraud, and in collusion with M.Chandrashekar. Defendant No.2 entered the suit property, and tried to dig a foundation. Defendant No.2 has not acquired any title by the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff vendors being the owner of land bearing Sy.No.51 of Gidadakonenahalli village, measuring 4 acres 11 guntas, had sold the said property under a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991 in favour of Ramachandra Reddy, and one Chandrashekar, and the said land was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BDA for short) for the further expansion of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 Vishveswaraiah Layout and subsequently, BDA has denotified two acres of land in the said survey number. Further, BDA confirmed that 26 guntas of land, owned by defendant No.1, has been deleted from acquisition proceedings, and issued an endorsement on 22.09.2004. Defendant No.1 had purchased 26 guntas in Sy.No.31 from its original owner, Chandrashekar, through the GPA. Based on the said GPA, defendant No.1 sold one site in favour of defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 04.10.2004. The plaintiff's vendors have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, since they have already sold the land in Sy.No.31 in favour of Ramachandra Reddy, and M.Chandrashekar about 15 years back. The defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and additional issues, which are as follows: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? 3. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff further proves that sale deed dated 04.10.2004 is null and void? 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and marked 3 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, on hearing both the sides, and on assessing verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1, 2, and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative, and issue No.3 as per the final order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 10. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 21.11.2012. It is declared and ordered that, the sale deed dated 04.10.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void, and a decree for permanent injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Defendants No.1 and 2, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.109/2005, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.18/2013 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 11. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the appellants prove that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 2. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below calls for interference by the hands of this Court? 3. What Order? 12. The first appellate Court, on re-assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered points No.1 and 2 in the negative, and point No.3 as per the final order, and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 20.04.2016, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.109/2005. Defendants No.1 and 2, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 13. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the defendants and the plaintiff. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that as of the date of execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the vendors of the plaintiff had no title over the suit schedule property. He submits that the vendors of the plaintiff had already sold the land bearing - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 Sy.No.31 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas in favour of one Ramachandra Reddy and Chandrashekar in 1991 under a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991 and the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 22.07.2004 had not acquired any right over the suit property. The plaintiff had not acquired any right over the suit site. The said aspect was not adequately appreciated by the Courts below, and they committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had acquired the title by a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2004. He submits that the plaintiff’s vendors had a title over the suit schedule property, as of the date of execution of the registered sale deed. Based on the registered sale deed, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records. He also submits that the sale deed executed on 22.07.2004 in favour of the plaintiff is before the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 04.10.2004, i.e., the subsequent sale deed. Defendant No.2 acquired no title by a registered sale deed dated 04.10.2004. hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. This Court, vide order dated 11.01.2023, admitted the appeal, to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether both the Courts erred in declaring plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit land on the basis of sale deed secured by plaintiff on 22.07.2004 through a GPA holder executed by his father and uncles, when admittedly his father and uncles had alienated the entire extent of Sy.No.31 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas in favour of Ramachandra Reddy and M.Chandrashekar under registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991 and there on plaintiff will not acquire title based on a GPA executed prior to alienation by his ancestors? 2. Whether both the Courts erred in granting relief of declaration of title when admittedly plaintiff’s father and his ancestors could not have executed a GPA and the GPA holder could not have executed a sale deed on 22.09.2004, when the property was already conveyed to one - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 Ramachandra Reddy and M. Chandrashekar by all the family members of plaintiff way back in 1991? Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 and 2: Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are taken together for a common discussion. 17. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. He deposed that he became the absolute owner of site number 59, Khata number 31, and assessment number 31, situated at Gidadakonenahalli village, measuring East-West 40 feet and North - South 30 feet. He purchased the property from one Rangaswamy, the power of attorney holder of Sri.Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Sri Mayanna, Sri.Venkatachala, Sri. Venktahanumaiah and Sri.Hanumantrayappa, under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2004. After buying the property, the necessary entries have been made in his name, and he is paying the tax of the suit schedule - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 property to the concerned authority, and enjoying the suit property without any hindrance. 18. Earlier, the land bearing survey number 31, measuring 5 acres, 11 guntas, situated at Bidarahalli Hobli, was owned by Venkatramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Venktachala, Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumantrayappa. The said owners and one M. Chandrasekhar formed a layout in the land consisting of several sites with an understanding of selling the sites to prospective purchasers. As per the said understanding, all the sites were sold by the owners or their agent. M. Chandrasekhar sold sites Nos. 48 and 58 on 05.11.1990 and 24.10.1990, respectively. The Plaintiff had purchased the suit-schedule property on 23.05.1993 through the general power of attorney holder of the original owners. Chandrasekhar was fully aware that several sites had been sold. However, in survey No. 51, he obtained a registered sale deed on 09.01.1991 regarding 4 acres and 11 guntas of the land - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 through the original owners to sell the said land to third parties to defraud the rights of the earlier purchaser. 19. Defendant No.1 and Chandrashekhar, the vendor of Defendant No. 1, in collusion with each other, created the general power of attorney on 04.12.1995, only regarding sites, which were sold to the others before 1991. In view of the fraud played by defendant No. 1 and the said Chandrasekhar, the sale deed dated 04.10.2004 came into existence regarding the suit scheduled property to knock off the Plaintiff's property. The sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. It is a document that came into existence after the sale deed of the Plaintiff as part of fraud, and fabrication of the documents. Chandrashekhar was one of the witnesses and signatory to the GPA, which was in the name of the Plaintiff's vendor. The defendants entered the suit schedule property with some unknown persons, and tried to dig a foundation. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 20. To prove his case, the Plaintiff has produced the documents. Exhibit P.1, is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 22.07.2024, which discloses that the Plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property through the general power of attorney holder of the original owners. Ex. P.2 is the tax paid receipt, wherein, the plaintiff paid the tax on the suit schedule property. Exhibit P.3 is the assessment register extract, which stands in the name of PW-1 i.e., the plaintiff. Exhibit P.4 is the demand register extract, which discloses the plaintiff's name. Exhibit P.5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 24.10.1990, executed by Muni Hanumaiah and five others through their general power of attorney holder M.Chandrashekhar in favour of K. Selvan regarding the site bearing house list number 58 of the said village, Exhibit P6 is the RTC extract for the land bearing survey number 31/1 measuring 3 acres 39 guntas excluding Kharab, for 2009-10 standing in the name of Venkat Ramanappa and others. Exhibit P.7 is the certified copy of the endorsement dated 20.07.2004 issued by the BDA - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 regarding the de-notification of two acres of the land in survey number 31 of Gidadakonenahalli village, and Exhibit P.8 is the notarized copy of the survey sketch issued by the competent authority. 21. During cross-examination, it was elicited that PW-1 studied up to PUC and did not produce the original power of attorney of the person who sold the suit property to him. When he went for a Xerox., the original power of attorney was lost. He cannot remember the date when he lost it. Accordingly, he does not remember which date the property owner executed the power of attorney in favour of Rangaswamy. The power of attorney was executed before the notary, but he do not know which notary. He has not produced a copy of the said power of attorney in any office before; He has checked whether the person who sold the property has any right in the suit property. He has seen only Pahani in the name of the said person. The pahani was in 2004. He cannot tell on which day the Pahani was taken. The pahani was related to survey No. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 31, and Chandrashekhar had made plots in that survey number, but he does not know, how many plots were formed by Chandrashekhar in the said land. 22. He admits that the BDA had acquired Sy.No. 31 and the suit property even before the sale was executed in his favour. He does not know in whose name the suit property was acquired. NOC was still with the owner. He has the photocopy of the NOC, and he does not know the date of the NOC. He admits that Chandrashekhar formed a layout and plots after purchasing Sy.No.31. He pleads ignorance that, after forming the plots, Ramchandra Reddy and Chandrashekhar sold the property to Muniyappa, i.e., defendant No. 1, on 04.12.1995. He has denied that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and denied that Rangaswamy had no authority to sell the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff under a registered sale deed. The previous owners of Survey No. 31 had no authority to sell the suit property in 2004. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 23. It is denied that the plaintiff and Rangaswamy have jointly created a false document regarding the suit property. Further, in the cross-examination, it was elicited that he does not know the total extent of the land owned by his vendors in Survey Number 31, and he does not know whether the original owners sold 4 acres and 11 guntas in Survey Number 31 in favour of M. Chandrasekhar and Ramchandra Reddy in 1991. He admits that BDA had issued a notification to acquire the said land. He denies that he had purchased the site when final notification was pending and denies that M. Chandrashekhar and Ramchandra Reddy got denotified regarding the acquisition. He denies that the Plaintiff and his vendors created the documents to knock away the suit property. 24. Conversely, defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW1. He deposed that land bearing survey No. 31 measuring 4 acres 11 Guntas belonged to the ownership of Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Mayanna, - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 Venkatachala, Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumatrayappa. The persons above had sold 4 acre 11 guntas under a registered sale dated 09.01.1991 in favour of one Ramchandra Reddy and M. Chandrasekhar. The Bengaluru Development Authority had acquired the entire 4 acre 11 guntas in survey number 31 to form a further extension of Sir M. Vishveshraiah layout. Subsequently, the BDA has given up 2 out of 4 acres, 11 Guntas, in survey number 31 from the acquisition proceedings. 25. The purchasers, M. Ramchandra Reddy and M. Chandrasekhar, formed a layout, and defendant No. 1 had purchased 26 Guntas of land from the said Ramchandra Reddy and M. Chandrasekhar. Subsequently, upon his representation, BDA confirmed that 26 Guntas of land, which defendant No.1 purchased, has been deleted from the acquisition proceedings by issuing an endorsement dated 22.09.2004 along with the sketch. Defendant. No. 1 purchased 26 Guntas of land from his vendor in survey No. 31 under a registered GPA dated 04.12.1995, out of which defendant No.1 sold one site in favour of defendant No. 2, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 who is his son, under a registered sale date dated 04.10.2004, which is the schedule property. Before 1995, his vendor owned and enjoyed the suit property since 1991. As of the date of the suit, the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 26. In support of his defence, the defendant has produced the general power of attorney, dated 04.12.1995 marked as Ex.D.1, executed by M. Chandrasekhar and Ramchandra Reddy in favour of defendant No. 1 regarding the suit schedule property, and the other sites, and defendant No.1 was authorized to do certain acts for, and on behalf of his principal. Ex.D.2 is the registered sale date dated 04.10.2004. Exhibit D3 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.01.1991. Except denying the suggestions, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the evidence. During the course of cross examination of DW1, it was suggested that, defendant No.1 along with Chandrashekar, colluding with - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 each other created the fraudulent sale deed to knock off the property. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. DW1 denied the said suggestion. 27. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it discloses that land bearing survey no. 31 was sold by the Plaintiff's vendor in favour of Ramchandra Reddy and Chandrasekhar under a registered sale dated 09.01.1991. The BDA has issued a notification proposing to acquire the land in survey number 31 measuring 4 acres and 11 Guntas for expansion of Sir.M.Vishveshwaraya Layout. Subsequently, BDA denotified 2 acres of land in the said survey number. The BDA has confirmed that 26 guntas of the land purchased by defendant No. 1 was deleted from the acquisition proceedings, and an endorsement was issued on 22.09.2004. The Plaintiff had purchased the site number 59 from one Rangaswamy, the GPA holder of Venkataramanappa, Munihanumaiah, Mayanna, - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 Venkatachala, Venkatahanumaiah and Hanumantrayappa on 22.07.2004 under a registered sale deed. 28. To prove that the original vendors have executed a general power of attorney in favour of Rangaswami, the plaintiff has not produced the general power of attorney unless the vendors have executed it in favour of Rangaswamy. The plaintiff can’t claim to be the owner of the suit property, based on the registered sale deed dated 22.07.2004, alleged to have been executed by Rangaswami, the alleged GPA holder of the original owners. The Plaintiff has not stated when the original vendors had executed the alleged general power of attorney in favour of Rangaswami. 29. First, in the absence of general power of attorney, this court holds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the original owners executed a general power of attorney in favour of Rangaswamy, authorizing him to alienate the suit schedule property. 30. Second, the Plaintiff has not acquired any right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property under a - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 registered sale date dated 22.07.2004, as of the execution date of a registered sale date in favour of the plaintiff. The original owners have already alienated the entire extent of the land, Sy.No. 31 measuring 4 acres, 11 guntas in favour of Ramchandra Reddy and M. Chandrashekhar under a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991. 31. As observed above, the plaintiff has not acquired any title based on the GPA executed before the alienation by his vendors. The Plaintiff's vendors could not have executed the GPA, and registered sale deed on 22.09.2004 when the property was already conveyed to one Ramchandra Reddy and M. Chandrasekhar by the Plaintiff's family members in 1991. The Courts below did not consider the said aspects and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. The defendant has proved that as on the date of execution of a registered sale date in favour of the plaintiff, the GPA holder had no right to execute a registered sale deed as the vendors have already parted their rights in favour of Ramchandra - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15565 RSA No. 1612 of 2016 Reddy and Chandrasekhar. Based on the above discussion, I answer substantial questions No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. 32. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside, and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. 3. No order as to the cost. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant will not press I.A. No. 1/2023, which may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2023 is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK, BVK, rs