- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100183 OF 2014 (MON) BETWEEN: SRI. PREMJIBAI BHIMJIBAI PATEL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KADIA (NANA), TALUK: NAKHETARALA, DISTRICT: BHUJ, STATE: GUJARATH, THROUGH HIS P.A. HOLDER SRI. JADHAVJI MAGANLAL PATEL, (SHANKHALA), AGE: 36 YEARS, R/O. KAKATI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI. &APPELLANT (BY SRI SHREEVATSA S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MOHAMMEDFARUK MOHAMMADGOUS PATEL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3761/2, BAGWAN GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SRI R.K. NAIK, ADVOCATE, R/O. RAJATHGIRI, DHARWAD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KUSUMA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001. 3. I.F. SIDRADDI, ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: KATCHERI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 4. SRI D.L. NARAYANRAO, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND MANAGER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION, N.H.A.I.P.I.U, DHARWAD-580001. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. S.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1- NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R4-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2014, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI IN O.S. NO.405/2006, IN SO FAR AS DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THIS APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND THE SUIT O.S. NO.405/2006, FILED BY THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF, MAY KINDLY BE DECREED AS PRAYED FOR, WITH COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2014, passed in O.S No.405/2006, on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the 8Trial Court9), insofar as not passing decree against defendant Nos.2 to 4 along with defendant No.1. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of recovery of money of Rs.13,39,388/- together with interest. It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 09 guntas in sy.no.1043/1 situated at Gandhi Nagar, NH-4 Belgaum. Out of 09 guntas of land, 258 sq.mtrs of land had been acquired by the National Highway Authorities for the purpose of construction of Four/Six lanes from Harihar-Belgaum bypass road. It is stated that plaintiff is from Gujarat State and he is not conversant with Kannada and English language. It is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 the case of plaintiff that he has not participated in the acquisition proceeding before the National Highway Authorities and also he has not executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to represent his case and he has not executed any special power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to represent his case before the National Highway Authorities. But defendant No.1 had falsely claiming to be the power of attorney to the plaintiff and got notarized power of attorney with defendant No.3, who is a notary advocate and has engaged service of advocate. Defendant No.2 got obtained compensation amount from the National Highway Authorities and at that time, defendant No.4 was Manager and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, National Highway Authorities. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that all the defendants No.1 to 4 in collusion with each other have received compensation without knowledge to the plaintiff. Therefore, filed the suit for recovery of money against the defendants. 4. On service of summons, defendants No.2 and 4 remained absent and placed ex-parte. Defendants No.1 and 3 have filed their written statement separately. Defendant No.1 denied plaint averments. Though defendant No.1 has admitted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 that plaintiff is the owner of land acquired by National Highway Authorities, but contended that the plaintiff executed power of attorney in favour of him and it has been notarized before defendant No.3 - notary advocate. Therefore, defendant No.1 denied all the allegations of plaintiff. 5. Defendant No.3 has filed a separate written statement by denying plaint averments and stated that both plaintiff and defendant No.1 have appeared for execution of power of attorney and accordingly they have executed and registered their power of attorney in their notary register. Further submitted that he does not know what transaction was taken place between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and he was not concerned to their transactions. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit against him. 6. The Trial Court has decreed the suit against defendant No.1 by directing him to pay a sum of Rs.13,39,338/- together with future interest at 8% p.a., from the date of suit till its realization. Further, suit of the plaintiff against defendant Nos.2 to 4 is dismissed without costs. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 7. The Trial Court has assigned reasons that defendant No.1 had fraudulently obtained power of attorney, though the plaintiff has not executed power of attorney. Therefore, defendant No.1 had played fraud against plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court has decreed the suit for the reason that allegations against defendants No.2 to 4 is not proved, as they acted bona fidely in respect of their work. Therefore, the Trial Court dismissed the suit against defendants No.2 to 4 and the decree of the Trial Court is against defendant No.1 only. 8. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal praying to pass decree against defendants No.2 to 4 also. This is the only ground raised in the appeal by stating that these defendants No.2 to 4 have also colluded with defendant No.1. Therefore, for modification of the decree that is passed against defendants No.2 to 4, the present appeal is filed. 9. Upon perusing the evidence on record, material placed on record and submission of learned counsels appearing for both the parties, the points that arise for my consideration are as follows: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, plaintiff proved that defendants No.2 to 4 have also collude with defendant No.1 in receiving compensation behind the back of plaintiff fraudulently ? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 10. Upon hearing arguments from both sides and perusing records, it is proved plaintiff is the owner of land bearing sy.no.1043/1 situated at Gandhi Nagar, NH-4 Belguam. It is also proved that out of 09 guntas of land, 258 sq.mtrs of land was acquired by the National Highway Authorities for the purpose of construction of Four/Six lanes Harihar-Belgaum bypass road. It is the case of plaintiff that he has not executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to represent his case and he has not executed any special power of attorney before defendant No.3, who is the notary advocate. Further, it is the case of plaintiff that all the defendants have colluded with each other and received compensation amount disbursed by the National Highway Authorities. Therefore, filed the suit for recovery of money against all the defendants. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 11. In the present case, defendant No.3 is the notary advocate, from whom power of attorney is executed and registered. Defendant No.3 has done his professional duty of executing power of attorney. But the plaintiff has not proved that defendant No.3 had an intention to make fraud on him. The power of attorney was executed by defendant No.3 in discharging his duties as a notary advocate. Likewise, defendant No.2 is an advocate representing defendant No.1 believing that defendant No.1 is a valid general power of attorney holder. Therefore, defendant No.2 had acted according to his profession and exercised his duty as being an advocate. Defendant No.4 is the Manager and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, National Highway Authorities, who has passed an order of disbursement of compensation amount. Therefore, all the defendants No.2 to 4 have discharged their respective duties being notary, advocate and competent authorities. It is proved that plaintiff has not executed power of attorney, therefore, act of cheating is proved against defendant No.1 only. If defendant No.1 has misrepresented defendants No.2 to 4, that does not mean that defendant Nos.2 to 4 were colluded with defendant No.1. Therefore, in the present case, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants No.2 to 4 had intention to defraud the plaintiff. But, on the other hand, defendants No.2 to 4 have discharged their duties as per their responsibilities. Therefore, the plaintiff is able to establish act of fraud and cheating on defendant No.1. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in holding that defendant No.1 had an intention to cheat plaintiff and had decided in his mind to defraud plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court has passed the decree only against defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit against defendants No.2 to 4. Therefore, the point for consideration raised in tis appeal is answered in the negative. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is dismissed. b) The judgment and dated 19.07.2014, passed in O.S No.405/2006, on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum is hereby confirmed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2214 RFA No. 100183 of 2014 c) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3