- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.N. NAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1(a) SMT. JALAJAKSHAMMA WIFE OF LATE C.N.NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 1(b) SANTHOSH SON OF LATE C.N.NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 1(c) KUM. SUMALATHA DAUGHTER OF LATE C.N.NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO (c) ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF VIJAYA NAGARA BADAVANE, NEAR LATHA BAKERY, KONDAJJI ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GIRI S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.S.LAYOUT, OPP: KSFC BUILDING, RING ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577006 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 2. SHRI K SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE SANNABASAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 2(a) SMT. K.S. HIRIYAMMA W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 2(b) SHRI K. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE K. SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS 2(c) SRI. K.S. PRAKASH S/O LATE K. SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS DEAD BY HIS LRS 2(c)(i) SHRI KIRAN S/O LATE K.S. PRAKASH MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS GRANDMOTHER RESPONDENT NO.2(a) ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARESHIVAPPA GALLI, D.NO.132/2, KALIKADEVI ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577001. 3 SRI. K.G. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS. 3(a) SMT. BASAMMA W/O K.G. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK 3(b) SRI. YUVARAJ S/O LATE CHANDRASEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BUSINESS 3(c) SRI. RAKESH S/O LATE CHANDRASEKHARAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/NEXT FRIEND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.3(a) RESPONDENTS NO.3(a) TO (c) RESIDING AT NO.132/2, SHIVAPPALA GALLI, KALIKADEVI ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2(a) AND 2(b); NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2(c)(i); RESPONDENT NO.3(c) IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3(a); CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.04.2013, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3(a) AND 3(b) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2009 (OLD NO.176/2004) ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. No.18/2009 (old No.176/2004) on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2009 by which the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff while the respondents were the defendants. 3. The plaintiff (now deceased) claimed that he purchased the suit schedule properties ('suit properties' for short) in terms of two different sale deeds executed on 25.05.2004 by Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram, who were the power of attorneys of the owners of the land in Sy. No.72 of Davanagere City. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 was a stranger to the suit properties and he tried to interfere with his possession in Site No.31A which is situate on the northern side of the suit item No.1 after the road. The plaintiff filed O.S No.134/2004 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Davanagere, for perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 and the same was pending. He claimed that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 defendant No.1 thereafter set up the defendant Nos.2 and 3 who claimed that they were the owners of the suit properties and attempted to put up construction thereon. The plaintiff resisted the acts of the defendants, but they claimed that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit properties and asserted that they would put up construction in a few days. The plaintiff contended that he purchased the suit properties from the general power of attorney holders of the owners of land in Sy. No.72 after enquiring into their rights. He contends that he is a bona fide purchaser of the suit properties for value and therefore, he was entitled to protect his right, title and interest in the suit properties. With these contentions, he prayed for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. 4. The suit properties are site Nos.91/A and 92/A formed in Sy. No.72 of Davanagere which lay adjacent to each other. 5. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.2 and 3, who denied the existence of Site Nos.91A and 92A. They also denied that the predecessors had given a power of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 attorney to Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao in respect of the suit properties. They denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and claimed that the plaintiff by obtaining fraudulent sale deeds in collusion with Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao was obstructing the defendants from putting up construction. Elaborating their defence, they claimed that the land bearing Sy. No.72/P was their joint family property where they had formed a layout after getting it converted for non-agricultural purposes. They had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao on 15.03.1975. As per the said power of attorney, they had sold the sites formed in the layout and hence, the power of attorney did not have any subsisting right, title or interest in any property other than the properties that were the subject matter of the power of attorney. They contended that they had formed one more layout in 1985 by obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner on the western side of the layout in respect of which a power of attorney was executed in favour of Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 and others had sold several sites in the said layout and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 few sites were available to them. They further contended that the power of attorney was executed on 15.03.1975 by nine persons and the sale deeds came to be executed on 25.05.2004 by which time, out of nine, five executants were dead and hence, the power of attorney dated 15.03.1975 stood abated and had no force of law. They contended that the plaintiff in collusion with Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao had obtained three sale deeds in respect of three bits of land in Sy. No.72 from the power of attorney holders though they were not entitled to do so. In short, the contention of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 was that the power of attorney was not in respect of the suit properties and that the power of attorney holders were not entitled to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff did not derive any better right in respect of the suit properties. 6. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants over the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the suit is properly valued and court fee paid is sufficient? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction? 6. What order or Decree?” The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The attesting witnesses to the sale deeds were examined as PWs.2 and 3. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.3 was examined as DW.1, who marked documents as Exs.D1 to D49. He also examined two other witnesses as DWs.2 and 3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit properties and that he was not in lawful possession of the suit properties and also held that the plaintiff failed to prove the interference by the defendants in the suit properties. Consequently, it dismissed the suit in terms of the impugned judgment and decree. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff is before this Court. During the pendency of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 8. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff contended that the power of attorney executed by the owners of the land in Sy. No.72 in favour of Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram/Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao was in respect of the sites formed in Sy. No.72 of Davanagere. He contends that Site Nos.91A and 92A were formed adjacent to Site Nos.91 and 92 and therefore, there was an implied attorney given to Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram/Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao, who conveyed the same to the plaintiff. He, therefore, contends that the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties is established as there is no dispute about the execution of the power of attorney dated 15.03.1975 and the execution of the sale deeds dated 25.05.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that the Trial Court had granted an interim injunction in respect of the suit properties on 16.07.2004 and that the said order was violated by the defendants and an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking for order in respect of disobedience of the order dated 16.07.2004 by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 defendants which was numbered as I.A. No.3. He contends that the Trial Court after perusing the evidence on record, held that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 had violated the order of injunction and therefore, allowed I.A. No.3 and imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- payable by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to the plaintiff. Thus, he contends that the plaintiff had established his possession over the suit properties and hence, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit. 9. The respective learned counsel for the contesting respondents are absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of their submissions. 10. After having heard the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and after perusing the material on record, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is: Whether the plaintiff had proved that the power of attorney dated 15.03.1975 was in respect of site Nos.91A and 92A and whether the power of attorney had implied power to convey site Nos.91A and 92A in favour of the plaintiff? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 11. The fact that Sy. No.72 of Davanagere belonged to the predecessors of the defendants is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the predecessors of the defendants had formed a layout of residential sites after getting the land converted for non-agricultural residential purpose. It is also not in dispute that the power of attorney dated 15.03.1975 (Ex.D1) was executed in favour of Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram / Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao in respect of Site Nos.1 to 122 formed in the aforesaid survey number as per the layout plan at Ex.D2. It is not the case of the plaintiff that site Nos.91A and 92A are found in the layout plan at Ex.D15. On the contrary, his case is that site Nos.91A and 92A lay adjacent to site Nos.91 and 92 and were formed in the marginal land of site Nos.91 and 92. In view of the power of attorney executed by the predecessors of the defendants in favour of Sri Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram / Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao, they claimed that they had implied authority to convey site Nos. 91A and 92A. In this regard, if we peruse Ex.D1, the power of attorney was in respect of Site Nos.1 of 122 which did not include site Nos.91A and 92A. Assuming that site Nos.91A and 92 are formed in the marginal land of site Nos.91 and 92, that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 belonged to the predecessors of the defendants. Therefore, unless there was a power of attorney in respect of site Nos.91A and 92A also, the attorneys, namely, Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram / Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao did not have an implied authority to convey them. These two sites in the absence of any power of attorney fell to the defendants as well as their predecessors. The other documents produced by the plaintiff, namely, photographs do not improve the case of the plaintiff as he was bound to establish that the power of attorney executed by the predecessors of the defendants authorized the attorney to execute and convey deeds of sale in respect of site Nos.91A and 92A. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff did not produce any documents to establish (a) the existence of site Nos.91A and 92A and (b) that Sri Vali Jayanna and Sri H.R. Parashuram / Sri H.D. Parashuram Rao were authorized to convey these two sites to the plaintiff in terms of sale deeds at Exs.P1 and P2. As regards the question of possession of the plaintiff, it is not in dispute that the suit properties are vacant sites when the suit was filed. The plaintiff except producing some photographs, did not produce any material to show that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41852 RFA No. 598 of 2010 he was in actual possession of the suit properties. Nonetheless, since the suit properties were vacant sites, possession followed title and if the plaintiff failed to establish his title to the suit properties, he could not fall back and contend that he was in possession of the suit properties. The evidence of the plaintiff which is reiteration of the averments made in the sale deeds and therefore, his claim that he is in possession of the suit properties, is inconsequential. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title to the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in considering the case of the plaintiff warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1