Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75988 (KAR)

SRI N RAMANNA v. SRI SYED KALLEM ULLA

RSA/861/2014 · 2025-09-19

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2014 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N RAMANNA, S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KUDUR, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, NEAR KUDUR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 567 203. (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S) 1(a) SMT SAVITHRAMMA, W/O LATE N RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT KUDUR, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, NEAR KUDUR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 567203. 1(b) SHRI R SURENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE N RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KUDUR, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, NEAR KUDUR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 567203. 1(c) SMT SHASHIKALA, W/O CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KUDUR, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, NEAR KUDUR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 567203. 1(d) DR. SAVITHA, W/O DR. KIRAN BABU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.362, R.R.RESIDENCY, 3RD CROSS, REMCO BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANGERE, R.R.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560098. (AMENDEMENT CARRIED OUT ON 20/06/2024 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 THE IMPLEADING APPELLANTS NO.1(a) to 1(d) ARE IMPLEADED) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P N HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SYED KALLEM ULLA S/O LATE SYED YASEEN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.23/A, 5TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, *Page No.1 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 06.02.2026. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 SIR.M.V.LAYOUT, DODDABASTHI, KENGERI HOBLI, ULLAL UPANAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 062. 2. SRI. SUPRIYAN RAJ S/O ANTHONI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.106, 3RD MAIN, 52ND A STAGE, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.412/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2011 PASSED IN OS NO. 2755/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is against concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title, injunction and cancellation of sale deed. 2. Suit is for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.08.2006 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of first defendant and registered before the Sub-registrar at Kengeri, Bengaluru at document No.20183/2006-07. 3. Defendant No.1 is the purchaser under the aforementioned sale deed dated 28.08.2006. Defendant No.2 is said to be the power of attorney holder of the owner of the property who is not made a party to the suit and defendant No.2 claims to have sold the property to defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated *Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 06.02.2026. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 28.08.2006 acting on the power of attorney executed by Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar. 4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit. First defendant took a contention that he has purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 28.08.2006 from defendant No.2 the GPA holder of the vendor Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar. The power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 in favour of defendant No.2 is duly registered. 5. Thus, defendant No.1 claims title and possession of the property based on the said sale deed dated 28.08.2006. 6. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the property from the owner of the property Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.2004, as such, 2nd defendant the power of attorney holder had no right to sell the property as the power of attorney holder of Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 7. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd defendant is duly registered and is coupled with interest and the plaintiff's vendor who sold the property on 29.07.2004 had not cancelled the said power of attorney on the date of execution of the registered sale deed on 29.07.2004. 8. The Trial Court held that Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar did not have the title over the property as on 29.07.2004 as he had executed a registered power of attorney coupled with interest on 12.09.2006 in favour of defendant No.2. 9. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and the legal representatives are brought on record. 10. This appeal was admitted on 04.04.2025 to answer the following substantial questions of law; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 "When Ex.D6 (GPoA) though registered, was not coupled with interest and did not divest Sri BV Dikshith Kumar (Principal) from dealing with suit property, whether both Courts erred in denying relief of declaration of title based on Ex.P1-sale deed though it was prior to Ex.D1-sale deed executed by defendant no.2 (GPoA) in favour of defendant no.1?" 11. It is noticed that there are few clerical errors in the substantial question of law. Hence, it is modified as under: "When Ex.P6 (GPoA) though registered, was not coupled with interest and did not divest Sri BV Dikshith Kumar (Principal) from dealing with suit property, whether both Courts erred in denying relief of declaration of title based on Ex.P1-sale deed though it was prior to Ex.P8-sale deed executed by defendant no.2 (GPoA) in favour of defendant no.1?" 12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would submit as under; 13. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is dated 29.07.2004 and that has been duly registered and vendor - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 has not assailed the said sale deed. Second sale deed which is sought to be cancelled is dated 28.08.2006 and said to have been executed by the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff's vendor. Said power of attorney holder is arrayed as defendant No.2 and purchaser is arrayed as defendant No.1. 13.2 1st defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement and thereafter, did not participate in the Trial. 13.3 Second defendant was placed ex-parte. The power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 in favour of 2nd defendant was cancelled on 16.09.2004. Both Courts erroneously held that the power of attorney is coupled with interest and power of attorney is produced before the Court. It does not contain any recital to hold that it is a power of attorney coupled with interest, is the submission. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that both Courts have held that the power of attorney was cancelled after the sale deed was executed in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 favour of the plaintiff and when the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff, the power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 was in force, as such, the plaintiff did not acquire any title over property. It is his submission that said reasoning is erroneous and unsustainable. 15. Though notice is duly served on the respondents, they remained absent. 16. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 17. First defendant though filed written statement, did not participate in the trial, did not cross examine and lead any evidence. 2nd defendant-the power of attorney holder did not contest the suit. 18. Admittedly, there is a registered sale deed on 29.07.2004 in favour of the plaintiff that is not disputed by the defendants. The vendor Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar did not dispute the sale deed dated 29.07.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 19. Both Courts have held that the vendor Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar could not have sold the property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed 29.07.2004 on the premise that as on the date of execution of the said sale deed, the registered power of attorney executed by vendor in favour of defendant No.2 was in force. Both Courts came to the conclusion that execution of power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 divested the plaintiff's vendor's right to alienate the property to any one else. This finding is wholly erroneous. Merely because the person executes a power of attorney to convey the property to some other person, the original owner's (principal's) right to alienate the property is not taken away. The right of the principal over the property would extinguish only in case the duly appointed power of attorney holder executes the conveyance deed based on the power of attorney. Admittedly, as on the date of execution of sale deed dated 29.07.2004, defendant No.2 had not sold the property to any one acting on the power of attorney of the principal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 20. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that Trial Court and Appellate Court should not have held that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is invalid. 21. The registered sale deed dated 29.07.2004 in the name of the plaintiff is duly registered and vendor has not assailed the sale deed. Thus, the execution of sale deed dated 28.08.2006 in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 under the power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 is impermissible, as on 28.08.2006, the principal Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar had no title over the property and his agent defendant No.2 cannot convey any title in favour of the defendant No.1. These aspects are not noticed by the Trail Court and First Appellate Court. 22. It is also noticed that the registered power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 is cancelled on 16.09.2004 by executing the registered cancellation deed. The power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 is not a power of attorney - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 coupled with interest as concurrently held by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. 23. For the reasons recorded above, the substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 16.04.2014 passed in R.A. No.412/2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore are set-aside. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 05.04.2011 passed in O.S. No.2755/2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore are set-aside. (iv) Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The sale deed dated 28.08.2006 registered in the office of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37675 RSA No. 861 of 2014 Sub-Registrar at Kengeri, Bengaluru, is cancelled. (v) The direction is issued to the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar to cancel the aforementioned sale deed and to make necessary entries in the records. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 ...