- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2100 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. J. S. MAQDUM ISMAIL, S/O S.M. JIDDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. J. S. MUKHTHAR AHAMAD, S/O. S.M. JIDDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. J.S. KHADIR MOULA S/O. S.M. JIDDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.1 TO 3 R/AT D.NO.5, HIG, BENGALURU ROAD, BMC LAYOUT, MYSURU - 15. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R.B. SANGAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE RAMU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. NARAYANA S/O. LATE RAMU, (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 RESIDING AT D. NO. 3498, JAVARATTI STREET, EAST CROSS OF ASHOKA ROAD, VEERANAGERE, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 001. 2(A). MAHADEVI, W/O. LATE NARAYANA, MAJOR, 2(B). RUDRA, S/O LATE NARAYANA, MAJOR, 2(C). NAVEEN, S/O LATE NARAYANA, MINOR 3. CHIKKAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 4. MAHADEVU S/O. LATE CHIKKARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE CHIKKARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 6. MANGALA D/O. LATE CHIKKARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 7. LATHA D/O. LATE CHIKKARAMANNA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 8. REKHA D/O. LATE CHANNARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DEFEDANTS 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT D. NO. 3498, JAVARATTI STREET, EAST CROSS OF ASHOKA ROAD, VEERANAGERE, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. 9. G. MYNAVATHI, W/O. B.M. RAJAMANICKEM, MAJOR, DOOR NO. 72/B, RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND BLOCK, 29TH CROSS, NEAR BASAVESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, BENGALURU - 560 079. 10. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MYSURU NORTH, MYSURU, KHILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.C. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R10; R1 TO R8 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021) THIS RSA IS FILED U/O 42 R/W SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.43/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2012 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 PASSED IN OS NO.508/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 appellant challenging the judgement and decree dated 01.09.2016 passed in RA.No.43/2013 by the IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru and the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.508/2008 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. Appellants were the plaintiffs, respondents were the defendants. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the plaintiffs' case that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the late Ramakrishnaiah, who purchased the suit property in 1930 under the registered sale deed from his vendor, Hyder Shariff. Ramakrishnaiah died in 1955, leaving behind his wife Puttamma and 3 sons, namely, Ramu, Chikkarama and Chinnaraju. They died leaving defendants No.1 to 8, as their legal heirs. Defendants No.1 to 8 became the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants No.1, 2, 4 to 8 are the grand children and defendant No.3 is the daughter-in-law, of late Ramakrishnaiah. Defendant Nos.1 to 8 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2005 for valuable consideration. 4. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 claimed that the suit schedule property belonged to her, and defendant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 Nos.1 to 8 and 9 started interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 8, in collusion with 9th defendant are trying to disposses the plaintiffs from suit property. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, they pray to decree the suit 5. The trial Court issued summons. Despite service of notice, the defendants No.1 to 8 remained unrepresented, and they were placed ex-parte. 6. Defendant No.9 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that earlier, the suit property belonged to defendants No.1 to 8 and on 22.04.1992, they jointly executed a GPA in favour of one V.M.Rajamanikyam, the husband of defendant No.9. It is further contended that said GPA holder sold suit property in favour of defendant No.9 under the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004. Hence, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 Defendant No.9 is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.9 has filed a suit in O.S.No.45/2005 against defendants No.1 to 8 and obtained the order of temporary injunction. 7. Defendant No.9 filed an additional written statement stating that her husband died in the month of November 2009. It is contended that the power of attorney executed by defendants No.1 to 8 in favour of the husband of defendant No.9, was not cancelled or revoked by defendant Nos.1 to 8, till today. The plaintiffs created the sale deed to deprive the right of defendant No.9. It is contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as sought in the plaint. Hence prays to dismiss the suit. 8. Plaintiffs filed a rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by defendant No.9 and denied the contentions and the averments in the additional written statement. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 9. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.2005? 2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants Nos.1 to 8 colluding with the Defendant No.9 are trying to dispossess them from the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the 9th Defendant proves that he is the owner in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004? 4. Whether the 9th Defendant proves that the suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid is not sufficient? 5. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed? 6. What Order or Decree? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 10. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 21 documents. Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On the other hand, defendant No.9 was examined as DW.1, one witness was examined as DW.2 and marked 8 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. 11. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court answered issue Nos.1,2,4 and 5 in the negative, issue No. 3 in the affirmative and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgement dated 26.11.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.508/2008, preferred an appeal in RA.No.43/2013 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 12. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they have purchased the suit schedule property from Defendants Nos.1 to 8 which was free from encumbrance and they have become absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the same? 2. Whether the Defendant No.9 proves that the Defendants Nos.1 to 8 had executed registered GPA in favour of her husband and he was authorised to sell the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiffs? 4. Whether the impugned judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and the same is not sustainable under law? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 5. Whether the same is required to be interfered by this Court? 6. What Order? 13. The first appellate court, on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered points No.1, 3 to 5 in the negative, point No.2 in the affirmative and point No.6 as per final order. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.508/2008. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 14. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Sannathayamma, i.e, the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 8 had no right to execute a general power of attorney dated 22.04.1992 in favour of the husband of defendant No.9. The GPA dated 22.04.1992 executed by Sannathayamma - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 is void. He also submits that as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, during the life time of the father, the mother cannot act as a natural guardian. The general power of attorney executed by Sannathayamma in favour of husband of defendant No.9 is void. He also submits that no consideration amount was passed under the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004. Further, he submits that the said non passing of consideration, the said registered sale deed becomes void. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kewal Krishnan V/s Rajesh Kumar and others reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489. 16. He also submits that third son is not a signatory to the sale deed. Hence, the sale deed executed by the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.9 to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property, is void. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 17. Per Contra, learned counsel for defendant No.9 submits that Sannathayamma, who is the mother of defendants No.1 to 8, executed a power of attorney on 22.04.1992 in favour of the husband of defendant No.9 and the power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.1 to 8 executed a registered sale deed on 02.06.2004 in favour of defendant No.9. He also submits that as on the date of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 to 8, had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property as they are already delegated the third party interest in the suit schedule properties. He also submits that defendant Nos.1 to 8 have not challenged the power of attorney executed by their mother in favour of the husband of defendant No.9. The power of attorney can act on behalf of the principal, and the sale deed executed by the general power of attorney holder in favour of defendant No.9 is binding on defendant Nos.1 to 8. He also submits that there is a recital in the sale deed dated 02.06.2004 regarding the passing a consideration amount. The plaintiffs have not - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 acquired any title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 18.01.2005. He submits that defendant No.9 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the suit. 18. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether both the courts have committed any serious legal error in holding that respondent Nos.1 to 8 have absolutely no right to execute sale deed in favour of the appellants in the year 2004, in view of general power of attorney executed by them in favour of husband of 9th defendant. 2. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court have committed any serious legal error in spite of coming to the conclusion that one of the share holder has not executed general power of attorney in favour of husband of 9th defendant and inspite, dismiss the suit in toto. Substantial question Nos.1 and 2: 19. Substantial question Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked and hence, are taken together for common discussions, to avoid the repetition of facts. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 20. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1 and examined one witness as PW2, who deposed that defendant Nos.1 to 8 were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and defendant Nos.1 to 8 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under the registered sale dated 18.01.2005, and defendant Nos.1 to 8 have delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. He also deposed that Sannathayamma has no right to execute the power of attorney in favour of the husband of defendant No.9. The general power of attorney alleged to have been executed by Sannathayamma is void. The husband of defendant No.9 has no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.9, and the defendant No.9 has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004. Further, the plaintiffs, to prove that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 and they have executed the registered sale deed in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 favour of the plaintiffs, have produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the registered sale deed, which discloses that defendant Nos.1 to 8 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 18.01.2005 by receiving valuable consideration. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the encumbrance certificates of the suit schedule property where Ex.P2 discloses that the plaintiffs had obtained the encumbrance certificate from 14.07.2004 to 01.02.2005. Ex.P3 discloses that the plaintiffs had obtained the encumbrance certificate from 01.04.1992 to 14.07.2004 Ex.P4 is the patta book Ex.P5 is the General award passed by the Special land acquisition officer regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.P6 is the sketch prepared by A.D.L.R regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.P7 is the Akar bandh of the suit schedule property - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the family survival certificates. Ex.P8 discloses that Chikkamma, Jayamma, Mangala and Mahadevu are the legal heirs of Chikkaramu. Ex.P9 discloses that Latha and Rekha are the legal heirs of Chinnaraju and Sannathayamma. Ex.P10 is the Rough Sketch Ex.P11 is the Tippani Uthar Ex.P12 is the M.R.Copy Ex.P13 is the Settlement Uthar Ex.P14 is the RTC extract. Ex.P15 is the death certificate of Chikkaramu, who passed away on 21.07.1990. Ex.P16 is the death certificate of Sannathayamma, who passed away on 18.08.1993. Ex.P17 is the death certificate of Chinnaraju, who passed away on 15.12.1999. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 Ex.P18 is the plaint in O.S.45/2005 filed by Smt.G.Mynavathi against Ramaswamy and others for relief of perpetual injunction. Ex.P19 is the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 8 in O.S.No.45/2005. Ex.P20 is the certified copy of the issues framed by the Executing Court in O.S.No.45/2005. Ex.P21 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.45/2005. 21. Plaintiffs also examined defendant No.1 as PW2. He reiterated that the other defendants had sold the suit schedule property bearing survey No.133/2 measuring 1 acre 24.08 Guntas in favour of the plaintiffs. PW2 is defendant No.1. 22. Defendant No.1 did not deny the execution of the general power of attorney dated 22.04.1992 in favour of Sri.V.M.Rajamanikyam, the husband of defendant No.9. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 On the other hand, the power of attorney of defendant No.9 was examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination in chief. He contended that Sannathayamma executed a general power of attorney on 22.04.1992 in favour of Sri.V.M.Rajamanikyam and she authorized the power of attorney holder to alienate the suit schedule property. Based on the registered power of attorney, the husband of defendant No.9 sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.9, for valuable consideration and executed a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004. Further, defendant No.9, to prove her defence, has produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.9 authorizing DW1 to depose on behalf of defendant No.9. Ex.D2 is the general power of attorney executed by Sannathayamma on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of the husband of defendant No.9, to alienate the suit schedule property on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 8. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 Ex.D3 is the Krushi Passbook Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 is the Tax paid receipts. Ex.D7 is the original registered sale deed which discloses that the power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.1 to 8 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.9. Ex.D8 is the encumbrance certificate. 23. Further, 9th defendant also examined one witness Raju as DW.2 who has deposed that defendant No.9 has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 8, through the power of attorney holder. 24. From the perusal of entire records, it is clear that there is no dispute that defendant Nos.1 to 8 were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Though Defendant No.9 had contended that defendant Nos.1 to 8, through Sannathayamma, executed Ex.D2 i.e. the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 registered general power of attorney, in favour of her husband, the perusal of said General power of attorney discloses that defendant Nos.1 to 8 have authorised the husband of defendant No.9 to sell the suit schedule property 25. Based on Ex.D2, the general power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.1 to 8, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 9 on 02/06/2004. Though the plaintiff contended that defendant No.9 had not acquired any right, title or interest under the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004, the defendant Nos.1 to 8 being the parties to the suit, did not challenge the registered general power of attorney, executed by Sannathaymma in favour of the husband of defendant No.9. Until and unless the power of attorney is revoked or cancelled, the power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the principal. The General power of attorney holder executed a registered sale deed regarding suit property, in - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 favour of defendant No.9, and hence, defendant No.9 acquired the title over the suit property by virtue of Ex.D7. 26. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Sannathayamma had no right to act as a guardian of a minors i.e., defendant Nos.7 and 8 as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardian Act, 1956. Admittedly, Sannathayamma acted as a guardian on behalf of defendant Nos.7 and 8. Defendant Nos.7 and 8, after attaining the age of majority, did not challenge the General Power of Attorney executed by Sannathayamma in favour of the husband of defendant No.9. As per Section 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to set aside the transfer of property, made by the guardian of a ward, the limitation prescribed is 3 years when the ward attains majority. Admittedly, defendants No.7 and 8 did not challenge the registered power of attorney executed by Sannathayamma in favour of the husband of defendant No.9. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 are estopped to contend that Sannathayamma had no right to represent them. Further, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 the learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that one of the sons, is not a signatory to the registered sale deed. The third son has not challenged the registered sale deed executed by General Power of Attorney of defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9. Though defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the parties to the suit, they did not challenge the registered sale deed executed on 02.06.2004, in favour of defendant No.9. Though summons was duly served on defendant Nos.7 and 8, they remained unrepresented. They have not contested the case. Defendant Nos.7 and 8, who are the aggrieved persons, are before the court, have not challenged the same. 27. The plaintiffs have no right to challenge the power of attorney executed by Sannathayamma in favour of defendant No.9. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of defendant Nos.1 to 8 and can challenge the sale deed. As on the date of execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 8 have - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. As observed above, the plaintiffs had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 18.01.2005. 28. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that no consideration was passed under the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004. I have perused the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D7. There is a recital regarding the passing of the consideration amount. 29. If, no consideration was passed under Ex.D7, the remedy available to the vendor is to recover the consideration amount by filing the suit. Merely non passing of a consideration amount, does not invalidate an instrument. Hence, the sale deed dated 18.01.2005, will not become void. 30. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramlal V/s Jarnail Singh (Now deceased) through its legal representatives - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 and others in Civil Appeal No.3245/2025 disposed of on 25.02.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that; "The non-payment of the balance sale consideration within the time period fixed by the Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of the contract and consequent rescinding of the same. The real test must be to see if the conduct of the plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to complete his part of the contract. There must be an element of wilful negligence on the part of the plaintiff before a Court proceeds to invoke Section 28 of the Act and the remedy available to the vendor is to file the suit for recovery of the money." 31. Admittedly, though Defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the parties to the suit, they did not file a written statement, denying that the consideration amount was passed under Ex.D7. Further, there is a recital in Ex.P7 regarding the passing of the consideration amount. There cannot be any oral evidence to contradict the terms of Ex.D7, as per Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 Act. Hence, the oral evidence contradicting the terms of Ex.D7, is impermissible. 32. Both Courts below, considering the said fact, have rightly held that the consideration amount was passed under Ex.D7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489. Admittedly, there is no dispute in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the instant case. Defendant Nos.1 to 8 did not contest the suit on the ground that no consideration amount was passed under Ex.D7. Defendant Nos.1 to 8, though they are the aggrieved persons, have not raised any dispute regarding non passing of a consideration amount under Ex.D7. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is not applicable to the matter on hand. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in case of Thankamma George V/s Lily Thomas and another - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 reported in (2024) 8 SCC 351. The Supreme Court has reiterated the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489. 33. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also placed the reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Ranganath Gounder and another V/s Kuppuswami Naidu and others reported in (1976) 2 MLJ 128. The ratio laid down in the said case is that the mother cannot act as a guardian during the father's lifetime. 34. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Sannathayamma, being a mother, cannot act as a guardian during the father's life time. Admittedly, the mother acted as a guardian and executed the power of attorney in favour of the husband of defendant No.9 and defendant Nos.1 to 8 after attaining the age of majority, did not challenge the said registered General Power of Attorney. Further, defendant Nos.1 to 8 have not challenged the General Power of Attorney, executed by Sannathayamma. Admittedly, in the case relied upon by - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 the learned counsel for the plaintiffs i.e, the case of Ranganath Gounder and another V/s Kuppuswami Naidu and others reported in (1976) 2 MLJ 128 wherein the minors have challenged the General Power of Attorney. Admittedly, in the instant case on hand, it is not challenged. The said judgment does not apply to the present case on hand. 35. From the perusal of records, the vendors of the plaintiffs i.e, defendant Nos.1 to 8, have no right, title or interest over the suit property, to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on 18.01.2005. As of the date of execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, Defendant No.9 was the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2024. As one of the share holders in the suit schedule property has not challenged the General Power of Attorney and the registered sale deed executed by said General Power of Attorney holder, in favour of defendant No.8. The Courts below have rightly passed the impugned - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:11911 RSA No. 2100 of 2016 judgments. In view of the above discussions, I answer substantial question Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. 36. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. 3. No order as to the costs Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK