- 1 - RFA 100279/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100279 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. DEEPAK S/O. VIVEKANAND GOLASANGIMATH, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: RENUKA NAGAR, HUBBALLI, REP. BY GPA HOLDER V.M.GOLASANGIMATH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANAMANTHAGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHILAKWAD, TALUK: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 2. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA LAKKUNDI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PARVAPUR BUILDING, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA LAKKUNDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. 3. SRI. JAYA S/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA LAKKUNDI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. PARVAPUR BUILDING, VIDYANAGAR, - 2 - RFA 100279/2017 HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580021. 4. SRI. VIJAY S/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA LAKKUNDI, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. PARVAPUR BUILDING, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-582208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL & SRI. ROHIT S.PATIL, ADVS. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V.O.DATED 24.09.2024) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2016 IN O.S.NO.208/2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.208/2010. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by defendant No.3/pendente lite purchaser, who is aggrieved by the decree granted by trial Court thereby, declaring General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA') dated 04.02.1990 alleged to have been executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 as false, created document and not binding on the plaintiff. Consequently, the sale deed - 3 - RFA 100279/2017 executed by defendant No.2 based on GPA dated 04.02.1990 is also declared as null, void and not binding on the plaintiff. The consequential relief of injunction is granted thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the portion of the suit schedule property measuring 1-Acre 27-Guntas. 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranking of the parties is referred to as trial Court’s ranking. 3. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff asserts that he came in contact with defendant No.2 and at his instance, the plaintiff was compelled to execute a GPA on an assurance given by defendant No.2 that he would get the land converted. The plaintiff therefore contends that on an assurance, he purchased the present suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 18.02.1988 to which defendant No.2 and one Anjaneya stood as witnesses. Since defendant No.2 assured that he would - 4 - RFA 100279/2017 get the land convert, plaintiff executed a GPA and handed over all original title deeds. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No.2 kept on promise that he will get the land converted and return the title deeds. The plaintiff further pleads that in the year 1990, defendant No.2 on enquiry informed the plaintiff that he has lost original title deeds and they are not traceable. It was only in the year 2009- 2010 when the plaintiff obtained records of rights relating to the suit schedule property, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2 has misused the alleged GPA dated 04.02.1990 by creating the same and in turn has sold the property to his own wife, who is defendant No.1. Therefore, the present suit is seeking declaration to declare the sale deed dated 08.09.2008 obtained on the strength of GPA as ab initio, null, void, false and not binding on the plaintiff. 4. On receipts of summons, defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statements separately. Defendant No.3, who is a pendente lite purchaser also filed his separate written statement. - 5 - RFA 100279/2017 5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement strongly denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 on the contrary contends that plaintiff did execute GPA on 04.02.1990 and based on the said GPA, his wife-defendant No.1, who is an agriculturist agreed to purchase the property and defendant No.2 as Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff, has sold the property for valuable sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and plaintiff has received the entire sale consideration amount through defendant No.2. 6. Defendant No.2 also filed written statement and contends that there was a proper authorization particularly GPA dated 04.02.1990, he has executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 contends that plaintiff was paid the amount periodically to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 at the time of execution of sale deed. Therefore, defendant No.2 contends that there is no cause of action and sought for dismissal of the suit. - 6 - RFA 100279/2017 7. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and claims to be the bona-fide purchaser for valuable sale consideration. Defendant No.3 contended that defendant No.1 has sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 to an extent of 39 guntas under registered sale deed dated 25.10.2010 and hence, he claims to be a absolute owner. Defendant No.3 therefore contended that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief and sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court on assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has come to a conclusion that the GPA dated 04.02.1990 is a created document by defendant No.2. Therefore, proceeded to hold that this is a bogus document and consequent sale deed executed by defendant No.2 based on GPA dated 08.09.2008 was also held to be a fraudulent document and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit, thereby declaring that the GPA dated 04.02.1990 and the sale deed dated - 7 - RFA 100279/2017 08.09.2008 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, injunction is grated. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 and learned counsel appearing for plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has not chosen to contest the proceedings and there is no appeal filed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is reported to be dead. 10. We have meticulously examined the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence. 11. The following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the findings of trial Court that the GPA dated 04.02.1990 is a forged document is erroneous and warrants interference ? ii) Whether the findings of the trial Court that defendant No.2 has fabricated the documents styled as registered sale deed dated 08.09.2008 and therefore, same is not binding on plaintiffs, is perverse and warrants interference ? - 8 - RFA 100279/2017 FINDINGS ON POINTS NO.1 AND 2:- 12. Defendant No.1 is asserting title based on the sale deed obtained by her through defendant No.2 on 08.09.2008. Defendant No.1 is none other than the wife of defendant No.2, has contested the suit on the ground that based on the GPA in favour of defendant No.2, his property is already conveyed to defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 08.09.2008 and the relief sought in the present suit cannot be entertained. 13. We have carefully examined the evidence let in by the plaintiff and defendants, more particularly, the suggestions made by the counsel appearing for the defendants while cross-examining the plaintiff. These suggestions are found to be crucial to examine the genuineness of GPA followed by registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 on the strength that there is a authorization by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 to execute the sale deed. The cross-examination of PW.1 would be relevant. Therefore, we deem it fit to cull out the relevant cross-examination, which reads as under: - 9 - RFA 100279/2017 “¢: 12-2-1987 gÀAzÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÉÆQÛAiÀiÁgÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. zÁªÁ D¹Û ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ EzÉ JAzÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «AUÀr¹ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £Á£ÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹zÉÝ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä, CzÀgÀ°è «AUÀr¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É ªÀiÁr zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «AUÀr¹ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ºÉýzÉ. D §UÉÎ, 2¤ß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArzÁÝgÉ J£À߯ÁV CzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è J£ÀÄߪÀgÀÄ. ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä D ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjAzÀ C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉzÀAvÀºÀªÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É ªÀiÁr¹ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «AUÀr¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ 1988-1989gÀ°è ªÉÆQAiÀiÁgÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀjà ªÉÆQÛAiÀiÁgÀ£ÀªÉÄAiÀÄ £ÀPÀ®Ä £À£Àß §½ E®è. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É ªÀiÁr¹ CzÀgÀ°è ¤ªÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄ. «AUÀr¸ÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À J°èUÉ §A¢zÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß DUÁUÉÎ ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁV ªÀiËTPÀªÁV «ZÁj¹zÉÝÃ£É DzÀgÉ D §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀzÉà ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁr®è. D PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÁ® vÀ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ §AzÀgÀÄ. 2005gÀªÀgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ F jÃw 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸ÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÉÝãÉ. D PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è gÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀzÉà AiÀiÁzÀgÀ ¥ÀæwUÀw PÀAqÀÄ §gÀzÉà EzÁÝUÀÆ D PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉƧâgÀ£ÀÄß «£ÀAw¹®è, ºÁUÀÆ D PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ RÄzÁÝV ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹®è. 4-2-1990 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÉÆQÛAiÀiÁgÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî”. 14. Upon examining the suggestions put forth, it is evident that Defendant No.2 has admitted that the Plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in his favor specifically for the purpose of facilitating the conversion of the suit schedule property from agricultural use to non- agricultural purposes. This admission by Defendant No.2 is further corroborated by the Plaintiff, who has unequivocally accepted that he indeed executed the GPA in favor of Defendant No.2 for the aforementioned objective. - 10 - RFA 100279/2017 15. In light of this specific admission, the crucial question that arises is whether Defendant No.2 has successfully provided cogent and conclusive evidence to substantiate his claim that the Plaintiff subsequently executed an additional GPA authorizing him to sell the suit schedule property. An analysis of the available records reveals that while the initial GPA, which Defendant No.2 acknowledges as having been executed for conversion purposes, is a known fact, this crucial document has not been placed on record by Defendant No.2. This omission is particularly significant as there is no plausible explanation provided by the defendants for their failure to produce the admitted GPA. The assertion by the defendants that the original copy is with the Plaintiff is untenable, as it is a standard presumption that once a principal executes a GPA, the document should ordinarily remain in the custody of the agent, who has been empowered to act on behalf of the principal. Given this deliberate non-production of the admitted GPA, it raises substantial doubts regarding the authenticity of the additional GPA set up by Defendant - 11 - RFA 100279/2017 No.2. Consequently, the purported GPA, as claimed by Defendant No.2, does not appear to be a genuine document. 16. Further scrutiny of the evidence presented has uncovered crucial details that cast serious doubts on the very execution of the disputed GPA, allegedly dated 04.02.1990. The defendants themselves have conceded that the signatures found on the disputed GPA, marked as Exhibit D1, do not match the Plaintiff’s signatures as they appear in the vakalatnama. In response to this discrepancy, Defendant No.2 has contended that the Plaintiff has a habitual tendency of altering his signature. However, having made such a serious allegation, it was incumbent upon the defendants to provide substantive proof to support this claim, which they have failed to do. Another crucial aspect that cannot be overlooked is the significant time gap between the alleged execution of the disputed GPA in 1990 and the sale deed executed in 2008. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No.2, relying on this contested GPA, sold the suit schedule property to none - 12 - RFA 100279/2017 other than his own wife. This transaction further deepens the suspicion surrounding the authenticity of the alleged GPA and necessitates a thorough examination to determine whether the evidence presented by the defendants is compelling enough to override the evidence put forth by the Plaintiff in the present case. 17. The sale deed executed by Defendant No.2, based on the disputed GPA, has also been meticulously analyzed. Two striking factors emerge that are crucial in assessing the legitimacy of this transaction and determining whether the title to the suit schedule property was legally conveyed by Defendant No.2. Firstly, for a sale to be legally valid, the fundamental requirement of passing sale consideration under a registered sale deed must be fulfilled. However, an examination of the records indicates that Defendants No.1 and 2 have taken two conflicting positions regarding the payment of the sale consideration. Furthermore, these inconsistent claims are also contradicted by the recitals in the sale deed itself. Given these inconsistencies, it becomes imperative to scrutinize - 13 - RFA 100279/2017 the relevant recitals in the sale deed concerning the payment of sale consideration, as extracted below: “¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ®PÀgÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀiÁ°äà PÀ§eÁ ªÀ»ªÁnAiÀÄļÀîzÀÄÝ ªÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄļÀî d«ÄãÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀ »¸Éìà ªÀUÉÊgÉà K£ÀÆ EgÀĪÀ¢®è. »ÃVgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀÇgÁ d«ÄãÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ RjâUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ PÁgÀt K£ÉAzÀgÉ :-. ªÀiÁ®PÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ CqÀZÀuÉAiÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV dgÀÆgÀ gÀPÀªÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ªÀiÁ®PÀjUÀÆ ªÀ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§PÀÆÌ »vÀªÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀÇgÁ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀ°PÉÌ ºÀZÀѯÁV ¤ÃªÉà J®ègÀVAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀ AiÉÆÃUÀå QªÀÄäwÛUÉ RjâUÉ ¨ÉÃrzÀÝjAzÀ, ¤ªÀÄUÉ RAqÀ ªÀÄPÁÛ £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä (4,00,000-00) UÀ½UÉ zÀPÀÌ RjâUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ. F RjâAiÀÄ ¥ÀÇgÁ gÀPÀªÀÄÄ £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä (4,00,000-00) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß F M¼ÀUÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀÇgÁ Rjâ gÀPÀªÀÄÄ ¤«ÄäAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÝPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. ¨ÁQ §gÀvÀPÀÌ Rjâ gÀPÀªÀÄÄ K£ÀÆ EgÀĪÀ¢®è ªÀ G½¢gÀĪÀ¢®è.” 18. We also deem it fit to cull out the averments relating to payment of sale consideration in the written statement filed by defendant No.1, which is extracted, which reads as under: “¹) ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ CqÀZÀuÉ ¸À®ÄªÁV ªÀ DvÀ£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ±ÉæÃAiÉÆéüªÀÈ¢ÞUÁV ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ MlÄÖ ªÉÆÃQÛAiÀiÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆlÄÖ CªÀ£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ Rjâ gÀPÀA£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 19. We also deem it fit to extract the pleadings of defendant No.2 relating to payment of sale consideration. The relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under: - 14 - RFA 100279/2017 “It was told to the defendant No 2 that soon after the sale consideration amount is received by the sale of the suit property, the said amount may be adjusted by the defendant No. 2. However, up to 2008 the defendant No. 2 has not got any purchaser for the said land because of the entry of name of the National Highway Department in the property records. But the amount received by the plaintiff from defendant No. 2 was reached to the total of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence, the defendant No. 2 told the plaintiff that, the power of attorney executed in favour of the defendant No. 2 may be cancelled and the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- may be returned to him. The plaintiff has pleaded his inability to pay the amount. Ultimately, the defendant No. 2 decided that as his wife defendant No. 1 was having some savings with her to purchase some property, the suit property could be sold to her for the sale consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Accordingly, Rs. 1,50,000/- the balance amount to be paid to the plaintiff, was paid by the defendant No. 1 and with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2 has executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. Hence, the plaintiff has received entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for which he has wholeheartedly consented and the registered sale deed was legally executed in favour of defendant No. 1 and the possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No. 1.” 20. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the recitals in the sale deed and the respective pleadings of defendants No.1 and No.2 in their written statements, it becomes evident that there exist serious inconsistencies regarding the payment of sale consideration at the time of execution of - 15 - RFA 100279/2017 the sale deed. The sale deed explicitly states that the entire sale consideration had been paid in installments and that no balance amount was due on the date of execution. However, defendant No.1, who is the wife of defendant No.2, has categorically asserted in her written statement that it was defendant No.2 who had made the full payment towards the sale consideration. Contrary to this, defendant No.2 has specifically pleaded that he had made a partial payment amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-, while the remaining balance of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 at the time of registration of the sale deed. This glaring contradiction between the statements of defendants No.1 and No.2 raises substantial doubts regarding the authenticity of the sale transaction. The conflicting versions suggest that the transaction may not have been carried out in good faith and that it was possibly executed to give a semblance of legality to an otherwise dubious transaction. Such discrepancies in the statements of the parties involved cast a shadow over the genuineness of the entire sale transaction and indicate that the sale deed - 16 - RFA 100279/2017 may have been executed on the strength of a fraudulent document in the form of a General Power of Attorney (GPA). 21. A thorough reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the testimony of the defendants and the suggestions put forth to the plaintiff during the course of the proceedings, further reinforces the doubts surrounding the legitimacy of the transaction. The trial court had conducted an exhaustive examination of the evidence presented by both parties and arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion that the GPA in question was not a valid document. The trial court had valid grounds to doubt the authenticity of the GPA, as its findings were firmly based on the evidence brought before it. A crucial aspect of the trial court’s determination was the deposition of PW.2, the notary, who categorically denied notarizing the disputed document marked as Exhibit D1. This denial played a significant role in discrediting the legitimacy of the GPA. Additionally, the trial court undertook a meticulous examination of the contents of Exhibit D1 and - 17 - RFA 100279/2017 noted several crucial deficiencies in the document. Specifically, it was observed that the document lacked essential details, such as the seal and registration particulars of the notary, the area of jurisdiction in which he was authorized to function, and other identifying particulars required under Rule 12 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The absence of these fundamental details further supported the inference that Exhibit D1 was a forged document. The trial court, having carefully analyzed all these aspects, rightfully concluded that the GPA was fabricated, thereby rendering the sale transaction executed on the basis of the said GPA highly questionable. 22. In light of our reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings and conclusions reached by the trial court. The trial court has meticulously analyzed the inconsistencies in the defendants' pleadings, the deficiencies in the purported GPA, and the evidence provided by the parties to the case. Given these well- founded observations, we have no hesitation in concurring - 18 - RFA 100279/2017 with the trial court’s decision. The reasoning adopted by the trial court is logical, well-supported by evidence, and aligns with the legal principles governing the execution and authentication of legal documents, particularly General Power of Attorney instruments. Consequently, we uphold and affirm the findings and conclusions recorded by the trial court. Based on the foregoing discussions and the legal analysis, the points under consideration are answered accordingly in the negative and we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh