- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1137 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. THAYAKKA, W/O K.M. VEERABHADRAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S, SRI K M VEERABHADRAIAH, S/O LATE MAYAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS, 2. SMT V HARINA KUMARI, W/O H D DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SMT K V BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O NAGARAJU H V, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 4. SMT K V MANJULA, W/O MADIVALAPPA S L, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 5. SMT K V LOKESHWARI, W/O RAJANNA P K, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.1 TO 5 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.108, 4TH MAIN, 5TH ‘A’ CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 6. SMT DHANALAKSHMI K V, W/O DEELIP, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO 1234, 12TH MAIN, 2ND ‘A’ CROSS, BSK 1ST STAGE, RAGHAVENDR BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 050. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE VENAKTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DEVAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 060. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M B CHANDRA CHOODA., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 31/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2019 PASSED IN OS No. 46/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court. 3. The plaintiff/appellant at the first instance filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and subsequently the same is amended for declaration and for possession also. The trial Court at the first instance having considered the pleadings of the parties, since the plaintiff claims that the ownership is based on the power of attorney and affidavit and defendants who appeared and filed the written statement, stating that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,500/- from the husband of the plaintiff and at that time, he took the signature of the defendant in the stamp paper and defendant had repaid the said amount in the year 1989 and requested the husband of the plaintiff to return the stamp papers. But instead of returning the same, created the documents and even disputed the very documents. Also, the power of attorney was allegedly executed and is created. Though at the first instance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 trial Court framed the issues with regard to the contention of the plaintiff as below; "ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had sold the suit schedule site to him on 25-02-1988 and handed over possession to the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant herein removed the identification stones affixed to the suit site and illegally taken the possession of the same? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for other reliefs claimed? 5. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property? 2. Whether plaintiff further proves that the defendant is in illegal possession of the schedule property? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant had removed the boundary stone fixed around the suit schedule property? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of suit schedule property from defendant? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 6. What order or decree?" 4. The Trial Court having considered the documents which have been produced before the court, at Exs.P1 to P8 and also the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and documents at Exs.D1 to D5, answered all the issues as negative, in coming to the conclusion, that the GPA does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff. Also the affidavit and documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiff and also answered all the issues in coming to the conclusion that the very title of the plaintiff is under cloud and also plaintiff is not in possession. Hence, not entitled for the relief and dismissed the same. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in RA No.31/2020 and appellate court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points as below, "1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction? 2. Whether the trial court has further erred in holding that the General Power of Attorney will not confer any valid title of the property in favour of the plaintiff? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 3. Whether interference is called for in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 4. What Order?" 5. The Appellate Court also having re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, particularly in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 comes to the conclusion that there is no any reason to appreciate the contention of the appellants and trial court has not committed any error and comes to a just decision after appreciating oral and documentary evidence and answered the point for consideration as negative and confirmed the judgment of trial court. Hence, the second appeal is filed before this court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this court is that even Ex.P4 and Ex.P8, RTC extract which clearly proves and establishes before the trial court that the appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property from the year 1988-1989 onwards. Also counsel vehemently contended that taxes are paid in terms of Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. The counsel also vehemently contended that both the courts committed an error in not relying upon the document or power of attorney. Hence, this Court has to frame - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 a substantive question of law, with regard to the general power of attorney at Ex.P1 and Ex.P5. Also courts are not justified in coming to the conclusion that GPA is to be registered one and does not confer any title. Hence, this Court has to frame substantive question of law. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that when the title is in dispute and the very execution of power of attorney is disputed, and also the same is not a registered document and the same will not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff and also not establishes the possession. Such being the case, the trial court and appellate court rightly considered the material on record and it does not require any interference. No grounds is made out to admit and frame any substantive question of law. 8. Having heard the appellant counsel, and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and when the suit is filed claiming that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and though earlier suit is filed only for the mandatory injunction and for bare injunction, subsequently the same is not amended and trial court also framed additional issues. Whether plaintiff is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and whether the defendant is in illegal possession, in view of the claim made by the plaintiff that possession was taken illegally. In order to prove the same, except relying upon document at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 particularly Exs.P1 and P5 and the same are unregistered document of GPA. GPA also do not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, both the trial court and appellate court taken note of the said fact into consideration. Further, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that not made out any case. Even appellate court also having re-appreciated the same, particularly in paragraph No.17 comes to the conclusion that general power of attorney is not a document which will confer title over the suit property in favour of the person who get the general power of attorney, as per the provisions of Chapter X from Section 182 of Contract Act, an agency will not confer any title to the agent. Also, section 201 of Contract Act speaks about termination of agency with the death of agent. That means to say at no eventuality, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, kayaka can contend that they have stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff and that they can recover the possession of the suit schedule property based on the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43595 RSA No. 1137 of 2023 General Power of Attorney. Also in paragraph No.18 taken note of. Both the oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the trial Court has not committed any error and just reason is given. In the case on hand also, except the appellant claiming title over the property in pursuance of Exs.P1 and P5 general power of attorney, nothing is placed on record. 9. When such being the case, both the courts comes to the right conclusion that GPA will not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law to invoke Section 100 of CPC. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following order. This regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36