1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.136/2011 (EVI) C/W. HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.115/2011 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.160/2021 (DEC/INJ) IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.136/2011: BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT.PROPERTY NO.1 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS RAMAKRISHNANAGAR J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560078. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. RANGA RAMU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. SEENAPPA AGED : MAJOR S/O. ABBAIAH NO.56, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR BENGALURU-78. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) R 2 THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2011 PASSED IN HRC.609/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT. IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.115/2011: BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT PROPERTY NO.1 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560078. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.G. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O L. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.38, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, 6TH PHASE BENGALURU-560078. 2 . BASAVARAJU S/O LATE DUBBAGUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.38, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, 3 J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU-78. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; PETITION AGAINST R2 IS REJECTED) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.05.2011 PASSED IN HRC.NO.554/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-3), BENGALURU, ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT. IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.160/2021: BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. M. GIRIJAMMA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O NARAYANAPPA RESIDING AT NO.1 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS RAMAKRISHNANAGAR BENGALURU – 560078. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. RANGA RAMU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. S. DHANALAKSHMI AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS W/O SRI. L. SHANKAR RESIDING AT NO.38 3RD MAIN, 6TH PHASE RAMAKRISHNANAGAR BENGALURU – 560006. 2 . SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 4 2(a) SMT. KRISHNAPPA W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS 2(b) SRI. GANGADHARA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS 2(c) SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS 2(d) SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2(a) TO R2(d) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.9741/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.6), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THESE PETITIONS AND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents in respective matters. 2. R.F.A.No.160/2021 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9741/2006 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff who is the appellant before this Court. 3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff/appellant before the First Appellate Court that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing No.1 formed in Sy.No.38, situated at 3rd main, 6th cross, J.P.Nagar, 6th phase, Ramakrishnanagara, Bengaluru which is morefully described in the schedule. The same has been purchased by plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 19.08.2006 originally the suit schedule property belongs to Chikkamuniyappa son of Hanumanthappa that is defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 Chikkamuniyappa has executed a 6 power of attorney on 19.05.2006 in favour of plaintiff’s husband Narayanappa and also executed the agreement of sale with affidavit and handed over the possession on 19.05.1986 i.e., on the very same day of execution of the documents. In the year 1986, there was a prohibition of registration of revenue sites. Hence, original owner Chikkamuniyappa has executed general power of attorney and affidavit and other documents having received the sale consideration. The plaintiff’s husband was put in possession of the suit schedule property and he has been continuously in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any disturbance. The plaintiff's husband Narayanappa has executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff's husband Narayanappa has invested his hard earned money for the purpose of construction of residential house and he has obtained permission from the Panchayat and also obtained electrical and telephone connection. 7 4. It is also the contention that portion of the property was let out to the tenants. The plaintiff has constructed ground floor bedroom accommodations and also the 1st floor two bedroom accommodation and in the 1st floor, plaintiff and her husband and other family members are residing. The three portions are let out to the tenants and khata stands in the name of the plaintiff. It is further contended that alleged transaction took place between the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is a sham transaction as there is no consideration paid by her. The defendant No.1 recently with malafide intention claiming the suit property in order to grab the suit property illegally. Suit schedule property is all together different from that of the property claimed by defendant No.1 in respect of measurement and nature of property and boundaries. The defendant No.2 has executed general power of attorney, agreement of sale on 19.05.1986 in respect of the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 has put in 8 possession of the property in part performance of sale agreement on that day itself and plaintiff’s husband Narayanappa continued even till today and on that day itself Narayanappa who is husband of plaintiff continued in possession and one portion in the ground floor was let out on 04.03.2004 to the father of defendant No.1 by name Seenappa and now he was residing somewhere else along with family members. The defendant No.1 somehow obtained all the details of the scheduled property and with an intention to grab the property of the plaintiff’s husband, he has contracted defendant No.2 and requested him to sign as a witness in some documents before the Sub- registrar, Kengeri and without intimating anything to defendant No.2, fraudulently obtained the signature on the alleged sale deed dated 26.02.2004. The defendant No.1 on the basis of a fictitious and fraudulent document, attempting to harass the plaintiff and her family members in one or the other way and they have filed HRC cases 9 against the plaintiff's husband and other tenants before Small Causes Court, Bangalore. The defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest on the suit schedule property. On the basis of fraudulent and fictitious documents, doing all sorts of illegalities against the plaintiff and her family members as well as claiming the schedule properties. The efforts made by the plaintiffs and her family members on the above subject matter went in vain and hence filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed a separate written statement and during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 died and his legal representatives are brought on record as D2(a) to 2(c) and legal heirs of defendant No.2 did not appear before the Court and they were placed ex-parte. The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint and specifically denied the averment made in the plaint that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the scheduled 10 property and also the very execution of the power of attorney on 19.05.1986, agreement of sale with the affidavit and handing over the possession on 19.05.1986 and husband of plaintiff executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. 5. It is contended by defendant No.1 that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has purchased the same on 26.02.2004 by Chikkamuniyappa who is defendant No.2. On the strength of the said sale deed, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.2 never executed GPA in favour of Narayanappa. It is contended that the said Narayanappa had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff which clearly goes to show that they have created fictitious documents in order to harass the defendant No.1 and to grab the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the said Narayanappa who has filed O.S.No.675/2005 11 against the defendant and another for permanent injunction alleging that suit schedule property originally belongs to one Chikkamuniyappa and Chikkamuniyappa sold the suit schedule property in favour of one Seenappa under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.1986 and thereafter the said Seenappa executed GPA along with possession on 21.01.1990 in favour of Sri.Narayanappa and said suit is still pending before CCH-19. It is also contended that defendant No.1 has filed HRC case against plaintiff’s husband under Section 27(1) (a) (r) of Karnataka Rent Act. The plaintiff’s husband has filed objections to the main petition. In the objections filed by the plaintiff’s husband, it is stated that property bearing No.38 and now called as Site No.1 measuring 35 x 37 feet and originally belongs to one Chikkamuniyappa and he has formed private residential layout and he sold the sites to the various persons and also executed GPA in favour of Seenappa in respect to the property in question. The said Seenappa sold and executed 12 a GPA and sale agreement on 21.01.1990 in favour of Sri.Narayanappa and he further stated that Sri.Chikkamuniyappa and Narayanappa with consent have sold the property by executing an agreement of sale deed dated 24.12.2003 in favour of Sri.Doorvas in respect of the property in question and on the same day received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash as advance with the consent of Sri.Chikkamuniyappa, such being the case, question of executing the alleged GPA dated 19.08.1986 along with affidavit does not arise at all. The plaintiff has created forged and concocted sale deed dated 19.08.2006 in order to grab the property and plaintiff has no right. The written statement also amended with regard to the description of the property and earlier suit O.S.No.675/2005 was dismissed for non-prosecution. One Doorvas who is the brother of the plaintiff has filed a suit against defendant and others for specific performance of contract and the same was dismissed on 27.08.2009. 13 Hence, for the above reasons, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The defendant No.2 who had filed a separate written statement denied the case of the plaintiff. However, admitted that the suit schedule property originally belongs to him and contend that the plaintiff’s husband Narayanappa was the tenant of defendant till he sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 and thereafter he continued as a tenant under defendant No.1 with respect to the suit schedule property. The boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property is not correct and defendant No.2 has categorically denied the execution of power of attorney, affidavit and other documents said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff's husband in the year 1986 and put in possession and denied the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Narayanappa in favour of plaintiff. But, it is contended that defendant No.2 has executed sale deed dated 26.02.2004 in respect of 14 property situated at Jaraganahalli village bearing No.38, now comes under the jurisdiction of CMC of Rajarajeshwari Nagar measuring 35 x 37 feet in favour of 1st defendant and possession of suit schedule property was handed over to defendant No.1 on 26.02.2004. 7. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues at the first instance and recasted issues are also framed which are as follows: ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 26.02.2004 is null and void? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? (**issue No.2 deleted as per order dt.19.01.2010) 3) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as sought? 15 5) What Decree or order? Issues Nos.1 to 5 were recasted as per order dated.4.112015 RECASTED ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated 26.2.2004 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff for the reasons stated in the plaint? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit? 3) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference of the defendants? 4) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, she is entitle for damages from the 1st defendant for use and occupation of one of the room of the house in the ground floor of the plaint schedule property at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month? 16 5) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient? 6) What order or decree? 8. In order to prove plaintiff’s case, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and plaintiff’s husband examined as P.W.2 and two witnesses have been examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 (Ex.P.28 and 29 got confronted during cross-examination of D.W.1 and Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 got confronted during cross-examination of D.W.2). On the contrary, defendant Nos.1 and 2 themselves examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16. The Court Commissioner was also appointed in the case on hand for handwriting and fingerprint expert who has also been examined as C.W.1 and got marked Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, answered all the issues as negative including the additional issue No.1 17 and dismissed the suit. Hence, this first appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court in R.F.A is that suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. It is not in dispute that originally property belongs to one Chikkamuniyappa, Site No.1 which was carved out of in Sy.No.38, the same is measuring 40 x 40. The counsel would vehemently contend that 3 documents are executed in the year 1986 by the original owner Chikkamuniyappa in favour of husband of plaintiff Mr.Narayanappa, those documents are marked as Ex.P.1-agreement, GPA as Ex.P.2-agreement and also the affidavit as Ex.P.3 and received the entire sale consideration. 10. It is contended that at the time of selling the property, there was a prohibition of sale of revenue sites. The counsel would vehemently contend that having purchased the property, he had put up the construction, 18 i.e., house. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the photographs Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 for having constructed the house. It is also the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that the document which have been marked as Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.31 clearly discloses property stands in the name of the appellant and electricity connection was also taken when the building was constructed and so also taken telephone connection, LIC premium receipt, tax paid receipt and also relies upon the order passed in E.P.No.2885/2007, original agreement of sale dated 19.05.1986 which is marked as Ex.P.21, original GPA dated 19.05.1986 and original affidavits dated 19.05.1986 which are marked as Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23, the sale deed which the plaintiff got executed in her favour also marked as Ex.P.24 and so also the rectification deed dated as Ex.P.25, certified copy of order passed in R.F.A.No.648/2010, order passed in H.R.R.P.No.123/2007, H.R.R.P.No.189/2009 as Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 and so also 19 produced the copy of the sale deed dated 13.08.2004, 16.02.2004 as Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31. The counsel referring these documents would vehemently contend that these documents evident regarding the property was purchased and constructed the building and the electricity connection was also taken. 11. The counsel also vehemently contend that defendant Nos.1 and 2 colluding with each other created a sham document dated 26.02.2004 in terms of Ex.D.15. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the document of sale deed Ex.P.4 was executed by GPA holder in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2006 and also filed HRC No.13/2006 and the same was decreed and Execution No.28/2007 was filed wherein the plaintiff filed objector’s application and the same was allowed in order to put the objector into possession. It is contended that against the said order, R.F.A was filed and dismissed and also contended that D.W.1 admitted the possession of the 20 plaintiff. The counsel also would vehemently contend that schedule properties are distinct and not considered by both the Courts and also counsel would vehemently contend that that when the suit was filed, HRC petition was also filed and what they contend is only measuring 35 x 37 feet that is also different. 12. The counsel also vehemently contended that when the documents have been disputed that is execution of agreement, power of attorney and sale agreement with the affidavit and the same are referred to the handwriting expert and handwriting expert has given the opinion that same are belongs to the same person that is disputed signature as well as admitted signature. It is contended that from 1986, possession is continued with the plaintiff. The witnesses have been examined before the Court and the Trial Court has not considered the same. The counsel also vehemently contend that regarding the execution of the document also witnesses have been examined 21 categorically deposed the very execution and delivery of possession, in spite of it, committed an error. 13. The counsel brought to notice of this Court, when the HRC petition was filed in HRC No.555/2005 dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of Karnataka Rent Act and this Court in H.R.R.P.No.189/2009 made an observation that both the parties claim title through a common original owner Chikkamuniyappa and also brought to notice of this Court that suit of O.S.No.9741/2006 is filed by the respondent's wife Girijamma seeking to declare the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as null and void and the petitioner herein is only contesting defendant and no dispute that there is a comprehensive suit. Hence, an observation is made that the eviction petition in HRC No.355/2005 is kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Civil Court in O.S.No.9741/2006. To that extent, the order of the Trial Court dismissing HRC.No.555/2005 is set aside and the 22 proceedings are stayed till disposal of O.S.No.9741/2006, depending on the result of the suit, further proceedings in HRC.No.555/2005 has to be commenced by the Trial Court. 14. The counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.3 of plaint wherein specifically pleaded sale deed dated 19.08.2006 and counsel also brought to notice of this Court, the schedule shown in the suit measuring 40 x 40 feet and also contend that when the suit was filed in O.S.No.675/2005 before the Trial Court and the same was also dismissed. The counsel would vehemently contend that the copy of the statement of witness in O.S.No.42/2005 which is marked as Ex.D.1 and also contend that in paragraph No.3 of Ex.D.1 that is the plaint wherein specifically pleaded with regard to the suit schedule property categorically admitted that originally property belongs to one Chikkamuniyappa and he has in turn sold the property in favour of Seenappa under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.1986. Thereafter, said 23 Seenappa sold and executed a general power of attorney along with the possession on 02.01.1990 in favour of the plaintiff. 15. The counsel would vehemently contend that the very agreement of sale, GPA and also the execution of the affidavit is not stated in the suit which was filed prior to the sale deed. The counsel would vehemently contend that the agreement, GPA and affidavit are created and the same are created only for the purpose of filing the suit. The very pleading made in the O.S.No.675/2005 is against the averments made in the plaint. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the cause of action in respect of the earlier suit that is O.S.No.675/2005 and present suit are different. The counsel also would contend that O.S.No.675/2005 was dismissed and produced the document in terms of Ex.D.2 in 2007. The counsel also would contend that when HRC No.555/2005 was filed, objection statement was filed wherein no specific pleading 24 was made. The counsel would contend that the plaintiff’s brother one Doorvasa also filed the suit for specific performance and the same was dismissed and Ex.D.4 was marked. The pleadings of both the suits are different. The counsel would contend that documents of 1986 which are the basis for claiming the title are created. The counsel would vehemently contend that admissions on the part of P.W.1 to P.W.4 not substantiate the case of the plaintiff. When the cross examination was made in respect of P.W.4, no purpose would be served since he has totally denied the same. 16. The counsel would vehemently contend that the document Ex.P.8 which was relied upon and the same is only for the small scale industries establishment and Ex.P.6 is license issued for the purpose of establishment of small scale industry, Ex.P.7 electricity bill and also Ex.P.11, Ex.P.4 address and Ex.P.15 only in order to prove the address relies upon the LIC documents, tax paid receipts is 25 of the year 2006. The counsel would vehemently contend that sale agreement and GPA are created documents. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the H.R.R.P.No.136/2011 was filed and the same was dismissed as not maintainable and the same was filed under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of Karnataka Rent Act and judgment in H.R.C was also produced before the Court. 17. The counsel would vehemently contend that after the disposal of the suit, H.R.C proceedings was continued and H.R.C.No.554/2005 was allowed and against the said judgment, revision petition is filed and same is allowed. The counsel would vehemently contend that there is a clear admission on the part of the witnesses of the plaintiff. The admissions of D.W.1 to D.W.3 supports the case of the respondent. The counsel would vehemently contend that judgment reported in AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 341 is very clear that admission by party in plaint signed and verified by him and said admission may be used 26 as evidence against him in another suits. Such admissions cannot, however, be regarded as conclusive and party can show it as not true. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that the pleading made in the earlier suit in O.S.No.675/2005 is different from the present pleading where they categorically admitted that there was a sale deed in favour of one Seenappa in the month of March, 1986. 18. The counsel also relied upon judgment AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 405 in case of Bharat Singh and others V/s Mst.Bhagirathi and contend that admission is substantive evidence even though party is not confronted with the statement, weight to be attached to it is different matter. The counsel would vehemently contend that even though commissioner report is clear that signature made by one and the same person and the same will not helpful to the plaintiff since those documents are created documents 27 and filed the suit based on the created documents, the earlier admission is relevant. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent/s relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3229 in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., V/s Union of India and others and brought the notice of this Court an admission in pleading and contend that a party cannot be permitted to go beyond his admission. 20. The counsel also relied upon judgment reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2380 in case of Gannamani Anasuya and Ors V/s Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Ors and this judgment also is in respect of the admission. 21. The counsel also relied upon judgment reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3271 in case of THimmappa Rai V/s Ramanna Rain and Ors and also in respect of the admission made by party in earlier proceedings can be taken note of by civil Court. 28 22. The counsel also relied upon judgment reported in 2009 (5) SCC 713 in case of Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and others V/s Ramakant Eknath Jadoo and brought to notice of this Court admission in pleadings and made by a party in his pleadings is admissible against him proprio vigore. 23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 117 in case of Biswanth Prasad and others V/s Dwaraka Prasad and others wherein also discussion was made with regard to the admission used against the party making them and made by a party to suit need not be put to him when he is in the witness box. Distinction between a party who is author of a prior statement and a witness who is ought to be discredited by use of his prior statement. 24. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 (1) SCC 283 in case of Vishnu Alias Undrya V/s State of Maharashtra and wherein 29 discussion was made with regard to the opinion of the experts and counsel contend that opinion of the Medical Officer used to assist the Court he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact. 25. The counsel also relied upon judgment reported in 2020 (3) SCC 35 in case of Padum Kumar V/s State of Uttar Pradesh wherein also discussion was made with regard to the opinion of the handwriting expert and the corroboration of, if required that before acting upon opinion of hand writing expert prudence requires that Court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. 26. In reply to the arguments of learned counsel for respondent, counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that Ex.D.1 is in respect of different properties and also owners are different and description in O.S.No.675/2005 is also different. The suit in 30 O.S.No.675/2005 is dismissed for default and O.S.No.3136/2006 is filed in respect of site No.38 against husband of plaintiff that is Narayanappa and same is also in respect of different property and both Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are in respect of different properties. The document Ex.D15 sale deed is in favour of Smt.Dhanalakshmi and the same is in respect of different properties and boundaries are also different. The counsel would contend that dismissal of suit is erroneous relying upon these documents. It is also contended that original owner denied the signature. But, commissioner report is positive and observation of seal of Small Cause Court and Civil Court cannot help the defendants. 27. In reply to this argument, the counsel would contend that Court has to take note of paragraph No.9 of plaint and counsel would contend that the pleadings is very clear and not in respect of different property and same property and in the plaint also admitted the same. 31 28. The revision petition in H.R.R.P.No.115/2011 is filed by the petitioner/tenant contending that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the petition filed under Section 27(1) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 directing the respondent to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1,15,500/- at monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- totally for 77 months i.e., from January 2005 to May 2011 to the petitioner within one from the date of the order. If respondent fails to pay the said rent arrears to petitioner or deposit the same, then the respondent shall vacate the petition schedule property and handover possession of the same to petitioner. Further, it is also observed that the respondent is entitled to get possession of the petition schedule property from the respondent as per provisions of Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner in H.R.R.P.No.115/2011 would contend that determination of issues between the parties is subject to result of 32 R.F.A.No.160/2021 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 also not disputes the same and contend that this revision petition is subject to decision in R.F.A.No.160/2021. 30. The other revision petition in H.R.R.P.No.136/2011 is filed by the appellant in R.F.A.No.160/2021 questioning dismissal of petition in H.R.C.No.609/2006 which is filed under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 as not maintainable which was filed against one Seenappa and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that absolutely there is no evidence to establish jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and answered point No.1 as ‘negative’. It is the case of the petitioner in the said petition that the respondent was tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises. The petitioner’s husband and the respondent entered into a lease agreement on 01.03.2004 in respect of the schedule property situated in ground floor 33 of the building for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and the respondent has paid an advance of Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made the submission that result of this petition is subject to result of the appeal in R.F.A.No.160/2021. 31. Learned counsel for the respondent also made the very same submission, since the issue involved between the parties is with regard to sale of property and both the appellant/plaintiff and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 claim title in respect of the very same property and the said issue would be decided subject to the result of appeal in R.F.A.No.160/2021. 32. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court in R.F.A.No.160/2021 are: (1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.9741/2006 in coming to the 34 conclusion that sale deed dated 26.02.2004 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not null and void in answering issue No.1 as ‘negative’? (2) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove that she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit in declining to grant the relief of permanent injunction in answering both issue Nos.2 and 3 as ‘negative’ regarding possession and interference? (3) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in declining to grant the damages as claimed by the plaintiff in answering issue No.4 as ‘negative’? (4) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and whether it requires interference of this Court? 35 33. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respective respondents, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court in H.R.R.P.Nos.136/2011 and 115/2011 are: (1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in allowing H.R.C.No.554/2005? (2) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing H.R.C.No.609/2006 dismissing the same as not maintainable and whether it requires interference of this Court? (3) What order? Point Nos.(1) to (4) in R.F.A.No.160/2021 34. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit filed in O.S.No.9741/2006 while seeking relief of declaration and injunction is that plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property bearing No.1 formed in Sy.No.38 situated at 3rd Main, 6th Cross, J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase, Ramakrishnanagar, Bengaluru which is morefully described 36 in the schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was purchased by her under the registered sale deed dated 19.08.2006. It is contended that originally suit schedule property belongs to Chikkamuniyappa, son of Hanumanthappa i.e., defendant No.2. The said Chikkamuniyappa has executed a Power of Attorney on 19.05.1986 in favour of plaintiff’s husband Narayanappa and also executed the agreement of sale and affidavit and handed over possession on 19.05.1986. In the year 1986, there was prohibition for registration of revenue sites. Hence, original owner Chikkamuniyappa has executed General Power of Attorney, affidavit and other documents and thereafter, he received sale consideration amount and plaintiff’s husband Narayanappa was put in possession of the suit property and plaintiff and her husband are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any disturbance. It is also the contention that plaintiff’s husband executed registered sale deed in 37 favour of the plaintiff. It is further contended that plaintiff’s husband Narayanappa has invested his hard earned money for the purpose of construction of residential house and he has obtained permission from Panchayath and obtained electrical and telephone connection having constructed the building. 35. It is also contended that plaintiff has let out portion of premises to the tenants. The plaintiff has constructed ground portion and first floor portion and in the first floor, plaintiff, her husband and other family members are residing. The three portions are let out to the tenants and Katha stands in the name of plaintiff. It is contended that alleged transaction which took place between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is a sham transaction as there is no consideration paid by her. Defendant No.1 recently with malafide intention claiming the suit property, in order to grab the suit property illegally. It is also contended that suit schedule property is altogether different from that of the 38 property claimed by defendant No.1 in respect of measurement, nature of property and boundaries and possession is continued uninterruptedly. 36. It is also contended that one portion in the ground floor was let out on 04.03.2004 to the father of defendant No.1 by name Seenappa. Now, he is residing somewhere else along with family members. However, defendant No.1 somehow obtained all the details of the schedule property and with an intention to grab the property, played fraud on the defendant No.2 and obtained the sale deed and defendant No.1 based on the fraudulent and fictitious document is attempting to harass plaintiff and her family members. It is also contended that H.R.C. case is also filed against the plaintiff’s husband and other tenants and defendant No.1 had no right and no tenancy documents in respect of plaintiff as well as the tenants of the plaintiff. It is the claim of the defendants that defendant No.1 got the sale deed from defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 also 39 supported the case of defendant No.1 denying the earlier transaction in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 claimed that she is the absolute owner. The defendant No.2 subsequently passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record. It is contended that defendant No.1 has filed H.R.C. case against plaintiff’s husband and contend that in the said objection statement, different stand was taken and not stated anything about execution of GPA, agreement of sale and affidavit. It is contended that original owner has executed GPA in favour of Seenappa. The said Seenappa sold the property, executed GPA and sale agreement on 21.01.1990 in favour of Narayanappa i.e., husband of plaintiff. Having taken such defence, issues and recasted issues are framed as mentioned above. 37. Now, this Court has to reanalyze both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, since this first appeal is a statutory appeal and Court can consider both question of fact and question of law. Now, the question of 40 fact is with regard to very execution of documents of Exs.P1 to P3 by the original owner Chikkamuniyappa. Both the parties not dispute the fact that originally property belongs to Chikkamuniyappa. It is important to note that plaintiff mainly relies upon sale agreement, GPA and affidavit which are marked as Exs.P1 to P3 respectively. It is important to note that original of these documents are also marked as Exs.P21 to P23 and signature of the original owner i.e., Chikkamuniyappa in these documents are marked as Exs.P21(a), P22(a) and P23(a). Both the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have denied the very documents. 38. It is also important to note that it is the case of the plaintiff that husband of the plaintiff had executed sale deed on 19.08.2006 in terms of Ex.P4 and original sale deed is also produced before the Court as Ex.P24. So also rectification deed is marked as Ex.P25 and certified copy of the said document as Ex.P5. The main contention of plaintiff is that after delivery of possession in terms of documents 41 Exs.P1 to P3 and original Exs.P21 to P23, she has produced No Objection Certificate issued by Tahsildar and also certificate issued by Secretary, Sarakki Grama Panchayath for having taken electricity connection, since construction was made and also certified copy of licence is also produced as Ex.P8 and these are the documents i.e., Exs.P6 to P8 came into existence long back prior to dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, since the defendant No.1 claims title based on the sale deed of the year 2004. Having perused these documents, particularly with regard to establishing possession of the plaintiff, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that after having purchased the property, construction was made, No Objection Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar on 30.03.1994, wherein survey number is mentioned as House List No.2152:94-95 which was given to install 5HP power in respect of gramatana property. 39. It is also important to note that Sarakki Grama Panchayath Secretary has issued No Objection Certificate to 42 issue electricity connection and this document came into existence immediately after construction was made i.e., Ex.P7 and the same is in respect of utilizing the premises for the purpose of running small scale industries and in this document also, boundary is mentioned that on the west : property of Seenappa. Hence, it is clear that Seenappa had purchased the site in very same survey number when the site was formed. It is also important to note that Ex.P8 is the document of licence dated 19.03.1994 given by Sarakki Grama Panchayath for running small scale industry in consonance with the document at Ex.P7. No doubt, electricity bills Exs.P9 and P10 are dated 03.09.2004 which is subsequent to the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, but Ex.P11 is the Certificate issued by Bescom showing the details of R.R. number which is of the year 1999. The other electricity bills Exs.P12 and P13 which are admitted by the defendants in the cross-examination are dated 03.11.2006. 43 40. It is also important to note that Bangalore Telecom District has also given telephonic connection on 11.11.2003 and the same is evident from Ex.P14 and these are the materials which establishes the fact that plaintiff having constructed the building, taken electricity connection and also taken permission to run small scale industry. The plaintiff even produced the document of LIC policy, wherein the address of the very same property is mentioned in terms of Ex.P15. No doubt, Ex.P16 is dated 31.08.2006 i.e., subsequent to the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, the plaintiff also produced the photographs of the building which was constructed on the suit schedule property which are marked as Exs.P17 and P18. It is also important to note that when defendant No.1 filed H.R.C. petition and obtained an order of eviction against one Hanumanthaiah and took the possession, the very plaintiff filed objector’s application in Execution No.2885/2007 and the Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly the 44 documents which have been produced similar in the original suit i.e., tax paid receipt, electricity bill, photographs, No Objection Certificate given by Panchayath, copy of sale agreement, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, sale deed, rectification deed and also letter issued by KEB, taken note of the same and when the possession was taken in the execution petition, allowed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 and 99 read with Section 151 and directed the decree holder to put the obstructor in possession of the property dispossessed off, within two months from the date of this order, failing which, the obstructor is entitled to enforce this order. The Executing Court also conducted enquiry by recording evidence and comes to the conclusion that tenant was dispossessed in respect of the property of the appellant/plaintiff wherein tenant of plaintiff was in possession. No doubt, the said order was challenged and this Court passed an order, the same is subject to the result of the present suit. It is also important to note that plaintiff 45 has also relied upon rental agreement which is marked as Ex.P20 and the same was entered into between husband of plaintiff and the tenant A.C. Hanumantharaju which came into existence on 14.10.1998. 41. It is also important to note that when defendant No.2 disputed the document of execution of documents sale agreement, GPA and affidavit at Exs.P21 to P23, documents were also referred to Handwriting Expert along with disputed documents and disputed signatures are also marked in the Commissioner’s report as Exs.D1 to D10. The Commissioner’s report is also marked as Ex.C1 and Commissioner report is very clear and the admitted signatures i.e., S1 to S19 so also disputed signatures of ‘D’ series which are found in the sale agreement, GPA and affidavit are taken note and the Handwriting Expert has given the opinion that there is time gap of 18 years between the disputed and admitted signatures and opined that due to time gap, the acquired characteristic will not 46 change in the signatures made by the same person and also adopted individualized characteristic method for comparison of the disputed and admitted signatures and held that admitted and disputed signatures shows similar writing habit. It is also opined that in the admitted and disputed signatures, the variations amounts to natural variations, there are internal consistency between the disputed and admitted signatures, in the admitted and disputed signatures there is advance finger movement, there is medium skill in the admitted and disputed signatures, there is medium speed in the disputed and admitted signatures, the construction and formation of the letters are similar in the disputed and admitted signatures, the size of the letters are medium in the disputed and admitted signatures, the arrangement of the letters in the disputed and admitted signatures are similar, in the disputed and admitted signatures are in Kannada language, therefore slant is not considered. The admitted signatures are in dot pen and 47 disputed signatures are in ink pen, therefore pen pressure is not considered. The Handwriting Expert has taken note of all these aspects i.e., discussed in total 38 points and having perused the same, comes to the conclusion that disputed signatures are made by the person, who made the admitted signatures. 42. Having considered these signatures and also documents, it is very clear that the documents, particularly Exs.P1 to P23 are signed by defendant No.2 and the very claim of the plaintiff is also that having sold the property by executing those documents and delivered possession. These are the materials which clearly disclose that defendant No.2 sold the property in the year 1986 itself and it is also specific pleading of the plaintiff, at that time, there was restriction for sale of revenue sites and hence, all these documents are executed. No doubt, Commissioner is also examined before the Trial Court as witness regarding the opinion is concerned, nothing is elicited in the cross- 48 examination of Handwriting Expert with regard to the opinion is concerned and though suggestions are made that not properly conducted scientific examination, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. The Trial Court failed to take note of all these documents for having sold the property and possession was delivered and in the year 1986, there was no restriction for delivery of possession in part performance of the contract in 1986 and thereafter, put up construction by obtaining licence and also taken electricity and telephone connection and all these documents came into existence prior to dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, since defendants claim title based on to the sale deed which is marked as Ex.D15 which came into existence in the month of February, 2004. But, the fact is that possession has been established and even the same is considered in Execution No.2885/2007 when the enquiry was conducted considering the objector’s application and these materials were not 49 considered by the Trial Court. But, the Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the documents of Exhibit ‘D’ series, filing of earlier suit in O.S.No.675/2005, no doubt, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also brought to notice of this Court the averments made in paragraph No.3 of the plaint, wherein it is pleaded that originally property belongs to Chikkamuniyappa and in turn, he sold the property in favour of Seenappa under registered sale deed dated 21.03.1986 and thereafter, the said Seenappa executed GPA and sale agreement on 21.01.1990 in favour of the plaintiff. Though such pleading was there in the plaint, to evidence the fact that Chikkamuniyappa had sold the suit property in favour of Seenappa vide registered sale deed dated 21.03.1986 and Seenappa executed GPA and delivered possession on 21.01.1990, no documents are placed before the Court and it appears that by mistake, the same was pleaded and it is also important to note that the 50 said suit was dismissed not after adjudication of the matter on merits and the same is dismissed for default in terms of Ex.D2 and there was no any adjudication. 43. The defendant also relies upon the document of Ex.D3-statement of objections filed by the appellant’s husband wherein specifically denied the relationship between the petitioner and respondent in HRC No.555/2005 and also specifically pleaded that at any point of time, he is not the tenant under Chikkamuniyappa and he has not paid any rent under any circumstances to Chikkamuniyappa. It is specifically pleaded that the property originally belongs to Chikkamuniyappa and subsequently, he has formed private residential layout and sold it to various purchasers and he, in turn, has executed a GPA in favour of Seenappa on 21.03.1986 to look after or to act and also to proceed on obtaining the nil encumbered titled documents. Thereafter, the said Seenappa had sold and executed a General Power of Attorney and Sale Agreement on 02.01.1990 in favour of 51 Narayanappa. Thereafter, the Narayanappa has improved the said property. This pleading is also similar to the pleading made in the plaint in terms of Ex.D1. This Court already pointed out the fact that no such documents are placed on record and mistakenly, the same was pleaded by the counsel. 44. The other document is Ex.D4 that is the suit in O.S.No.3136/2006 filed by one Doorvas seeking the relief in respect of Site No.1 i.e., suit schedule property. The said suit is against the original owner Chikkamuniyappa and also Narayanappa who is the husband of the plaintiff and also Seenappa, wherein claimed the relief of specific performance in respect of Sale Agreement dated 24.12.2003 and also to declare that Sale Deed dated 26.02.2004 is null and void. Admittedly the said suit also was not decided on merits and the same was withdrawn in terms of the memo at Ex.D5. The other document is Ex.D6 which is the certified copy of the order sheet pertaining to 52 the very same suit in O.S.No.3136/2006. The defendants also relies upon the document of Ex.D7 which is a letter issued by Karnataka State Bar Council informing that one Late Anantha Samayaji B Bantwal was enrolled as an advocate in the office under Roll No.MYS/56/58 and his name is removed from the Roll of the Bar Council vide Resolution No.40/98 dated 15.02.1998 since he died. No doubt, the Tax paid receipt is produced as Ex.D8 and so also the receipts at Ex.D9 and D10 are produced to show that katha was entered subsequent to the sale made in favour of the defendant and also Form-B Property Register is produced as Ex.D11 and the Electricity bills are produced as Ex.D12, D13 and D14. The document of original sale deed dated 26.02.2004 is produced as Ex.D15. The said sale deed is in respect of katha No.38 and property No.38 and Rectification Deed dated 12.08.2008 is produced as Ex.D16. No doubt, the defendant relies upon the document of Ex.D15 that is the sale deed to show that there was a 53 sale in favour of the defendant executed by Chikkamuniyappa and also the Rectification deed at Ex.D16. These documents are title Deed of the defendant. 45. Now, this Court has to examine with regard to the claim made by the defendant in the suit. This Court has to consider the evidence of the DW1 and DW2. The DW1 reiterates that she had purchased the property from DW2 i.e., Chikkamuniyappa and relies upon the documents of ‘D’ series and also reiterated the contents of the written statement in her affidavit in the Chief Evidence. DW1 claims that Chikkamuniyappa had constructed the house in the suit schedule property and no documents are produced to show that husband of plaintiff and others are the tenants of D.W.2 but, admits that she has not having any documents to show with regard to for having paid the rent by any of them to D.W.2. It is also claimed that Chikkamuniyappa produced the document for having constructed the building. But no such documents are placed before the Court to show 54 that defendant No.2 constructed the house. It is suggested that she is claiming falsely that Chikkamuniyappa had constructed the house and after she purchased the property, she was collecting the rent and the same was denied. However, she admits in the cross-examination that after her marriage, she herself and her husband were residing in the house of the plaintiff i.e., the suit schedule property. It is also an admission that when they gave trouble to the husband of plaintiff, they filed a suit in terms of Ex.D1. It is also categorically admitted that when her husband filed a suit against the husband of the plaintiff, the relationship was not cordial and developed enemity. It is also admitted that thereafter, herself and her husband started to live in the ground floor premises of suit schedule property in 2002. Hence, it is clear that she occupied the house of the plaintiff even prior to the sale deed at Ex.D15. It is also admitted that after purchasing the property, she has not given any notice to the tenants to pay the rent and 55 also defendant No.2 who sold the property in her favour, not given any rental receipt and also not given any rental agreement to D.W.1. When a suggestion was made that tenant Hanumantha Raju had denied the relationship, she deposed that she is not aware of the same. However, admits that the said HRC was dismissed, but claims that a revision petition was filed before the High Court wherein, High Court ordered to reconsider the same and admits Ex.P26 and the same was confronted. 46. It is also admitted that when a case was filed against Basavaraju, the same was dismissed and against the said order, a revision petition was filed wherein ordered to reconsider the same in terms of Ex.P27, subsequent to the decision made in the original suit. It is also admitted that in the case of Basavaraju, there was an order to vacate the premises and also the same was questioned before the High Court and stay was obtained. The witness also admitted that case filed against Narayanappa was 56 dismissed and the same was challenged before the High Court wherein the High Court made an observation that the same is subject to the result of the suit and document also admitted as Ex.P28 and all these documents are confronted. However, admitted that when HRRP was filed before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the mistake of appellant, Execution Petition was filed and possession was taken and document was confronted and made an observation against the said order in terms of Ex.P29 and the same is admitted. It is also admitted that one Venkatappa had constructed a house in Site No.2. It is also admitted that there were no mediators for purchasing the property. But claims that she was a tenant and hence she spoke to the owner and this falsify the case of defendant No.1, in one breath admits that the plaintiff allowed her to stay and in other breath, tenant of DW2. It is also categorically admits that she has not produced any document to show that she was a tenant in the same house 57 with defendant No.2, but claims that the same was purchased on 26.02.2004 and she also identifies the signature of defendant No.2 in Ex.D15(a) and D15(g) and so also identifies the signature of DW2 in the Rectification Deed at Ex.D16 as Ex.D16(a) and D16(e). 47. In the further cross examination, she admits that no house number in which she was a tenant, but claims that the same is No.38. It is also claim that there was an oral agreement between her and defendant No.2 and she was making payment of rent of Rs.1,400/-. But she claims that she gave Rs.20,000/- as an advance and no proof for having paid the amount. A suggestion was made that she was not a tenant of the house of Chikkamuniyappa, the same was denied. She also admits that she cannot tell the house address of the defendant No.2 and also cannot tell that what was the extent of Sy.No.38 and also cannot tell how many sites are sold by the Chikkamuniyappa and she also cannot give the details. However, she categorically 58 admits that her father and Chikkamuniyappa are friends. It is suggested that Site No.2 was sold to Munivenkatappa, she deposed that she is not aware of the same and she cannot tell the boundaries of Site No.2. DW1 admits that the Rectification Deed was obtained after 4½ years. DW1 admits that one Basavaraju was a tenant in respect of ground floor premises and suggestion was made that after he vacated the premises, the same was given to the Sampamma and the same was denied. But she claims that still Basavaraju is residing in the very same address. However, she admits that ExP12 and P13 are standing in the name of the plaintiff. The suggestion was made that electricity connection was sanctioned in favour of the husband of the plaintiff and the same was denied. The claim that she was tenant of defendant No.2 is falsified in her admission that the plaintiff allowed her to stay in her house. 48. The other witness is DW2, who is the original owner of the suit schedule property. DW2 also reiterates 59 that he sold the property in favour of the defendant No.1 and identified the signature in Ex.D15 as D15(a) and D15(g) and so also in the Rectification Deed at Ex.D16. This witness was subjected to cross examination. He claims that this suit was filed by him and as per the instructions, written statement was prepared. But he says that he cannot see the signature in the written statement and also he admits that he cannot tell who had prepared his chief examination and do not know the contents of the affidavit and no credence can be given to his evidence. Seenappa told him about the date of the case and he knows him from last 20 to 30 years and he also his friend and he had sold one site in favour of Seenappa. He also categorically admits that Seenappa only told him to give site in favour of defendant No.1 and no one gave instructions to prepare the sale deed and he did not give any instructions, but stamp vendor prepared the sale deed and he did not produce the EC and admitted that the husband of the plaintiff is the 60 friend of Seenappa. He claims that in Sy.No.38, he constructed a house in the year 1990 and also admitted that by that time, Panchayath was in existence. But he admits that he did not obtain plan and license from Panchayath and also he cannot tell to whom he gave the contract to construct the house. But he contended that he made the payment of Rs.80,000/- and 3 RCC houses were constructed with AC sheet roof and admits that in 3 RCC houses, room, hall and kitchen is in existence. It is also admitted that Basavaraju, Hanumantharaju, etc., are the tenants. But he claims that defendant No.1 was also a tenant. He admits that he has not produced any rental agreement to the Court and for having receipt of rent also, not produced any receipt. But he claims that they were taking signature on the book maintained by them. He also admits that he is not having any document to obtain the electricity connection for the house. It is suggested that he never constructed the building and not obtained any plan as 61 well as electricity connection and the suggestions are denied. It is suggested that the husband of the plaintiff obtained the documents from Panchayath in terms of Ex.P8 and so also Ex.P9 to P13 are the electricity bills which are standing in the name of the plaintiff and her husband, but the witness deposed that he is not aware of the same and not specifically denies the same. He claims that in his name, electricity connection was taken but, he has not produced any document to prove the same. He also admits that when the property was sold, he has not given any instructions to the tenants to give rent to defendant No.1. He admits that in 2004, he sold the Site No.2 to Munivenkatappa and the said document is also confronted to him and he admits the same as Ex.P30. It is suggested to him that in the said sale deed, on the west, property number Narayanappa was shown, but he denies the same and he deposed that he cannot tell who wrote Ex.P30. But he admits the measurement shown in Ex.P30. When 62 specific question was put to DW2 that Ex.D15 and D16 were created only to trouble the husband of the plaintiff and plaintiff, the same was denied. 49. Having perused these evidences available before the Court, it is very clear that though both of them claim that building was constructed by DW2, DW2 categorically admits that he did not obtain any license and though he claims that he obtained the electricity connection, but he has not produced any document in that regard. It is also important to note that DW1 and DW2 claim that the tenants who were there in the building are the tenants of DW2. It is categorically admitted by both of them that there is no any rental agreement and for having paid any rent also no documents are placed before the Court. The admission of DW1 and DW2 was very clear that DW2 was the friend of one Seenappa, who is the father of defendant No.1. 50. It is important to note that the admissions which have been extracted above are very clear that the building 63 was constructed by the husband of the plaintiff since he had taken electricity connection, permission for construction of the house from the Panchayat. DW2 also categorically admits that Panchayat was in existence and though he claims that in the year 1990, he had constructed the building, nothing is placed on record. Hence the admissions are very clear that DW2 had not constructed the house and not delivered the possession in favour of the tenants and none of the tenants have been examined before the Court. Even not known the contractor to whom he entrusted the work to construct the building. Though DW1 claims that she was a tenant of DW2, but answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 is very clear that after her marriage, she was residing in the first floor of the building of the plaintiff along with her husband and hence, it is clear that building belongs to plaintiff. This admission is very clear that she was given permission to stay by the plaintiff. It is also categorically admitted that when her husband had filed a suit for 64 partition against plaintiff’s husband, the relationship was strained with the husband of the plaintiff and thereafter she started to live in the ground floor premises and hence, it is clear that DW2 has not allowed DW1 to occupy the premises as a tenant and plaintiff’s husband only given permission and this admission takes away the case of the defendants, wherein it is clear that after straining of relationship only she was allowed to live in the ground floor premises. It is very clear that she started residing in the ground floor in 2002 prior to sale in her favour and also categorically admits that when both of them have given trouble to the husband of the plaintiff, they were forced to file a suit in terms of Ex.D1. 51. These are the admissions were not taken note of by the Trial Court while coming to a conclusion that there was no sale in favour of the plaintiff and the Trial Court fails to take note of the opinion of the handwriting expert who has been examined as CW1 before the Court along with the 65 report wherein she categorically deposes that the signatures disputed i.e., ‘D1’ series as well as the admitted signatures are signed by one person i.e., DW2 and also confronted the documents of Ex.P26 to P29. Apart from that when the document of Ex.P15 was confronted to DW2, he categorically admitted the said document and he deposed that he is not aware of the contents of the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.1, but stamp vendor has prepared the same, when no instruction was given. Hence, it is clear that the said document was created only in order to trouble the plaintiff and her husband as admitted by DW1. DW2 also admitted the document which was confronted to him at Ex.P30. But when the suggestion was made that on the west, the property of Narayanappa is shown in the sale deed, denied the same. On perusal of document Ex.D30, it is very clear that on the west, property of the plaintiff is shown as property of Narayanappa i.e., suit schedule property since site No.1 sold to Narayanappa 66 and property No.38 shown only with an intention to create documents with defendant No.1 and her father Seenappa. It is important to note that the sale deed at Ex.P30 is in respect of Site No.2 and plaintiff is claiming the title and right in respect of the Site No.1. When all these admissions were given by DW1 and DW2 that goes against the evidence of DW1. It is also very clear that the document was created to trouble the husband of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff since her husband filed the suit. But the document of Ex.D15 came into existence as sham document as contended by the plaintiff since it is a collusive document. All documents and admissions which have been given are very clear that property was sold long back in the year 1986 in favour of the Narayanappa who is the husband of the plaintiff and executed the power of attorney wherein also all rights are given to the purchasers including to construct the house and sell the property. Having perused the document dated 19.05.1986 that is Ex.P21 to P23 67 discloses that those stamp papers are purchased on 17.05.1986 and document was executed on 19.05.1986 and the very same day, the stamp papers were purchased and the same is evident from the record. The Trial Court magnified with regard to the seal put by the Judge in respect of the said document. The document of Ex.P7 wherein the notarized advocate register number is 56/958 and not 56/95 as given in Ex.P7 and also it was notarized before the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru but seal was put by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the same is magnified by the Trial Court doubting the same. But the fact is that the stamp paper was issued prior to the issuance of the stamp paper by the stamp vendor and the same was issued on 19.05.1986 and on the very same day, the document came into existence and Trial Court fails to consider all these documents when defendants Nos.1 and 2 have contend that tenants are their tenants, but nothing is placed on record to prove the same. 68 52. Having considered the material on record and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred by the respondent’s counsel, no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment with respect to admission is concerned. If there is an admission in the pleadings, the same also to be taken note of as held in the judgments referred and so also the principles laid down in the judgment with regard to the opinion of handwriting expert and in the case on hand, the respondent disputed the very execution of the document Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.23 and now the commissioner report is against the defence of defendant No.2 and no dispute with regard to the principle that corroboration requires and also the opinion of the expert is an advisory in nature and also to be considered along with other material available on record and the answers elicited from the mouth of witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 clearly indicates that though Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.23 are denied, but the fact is that possession was delivered and 69 plaintiff acted upon in terms of the said documents and constructed the building and also D.W.1 claims that she is tenant of D.W.2 but, her admission is very clear that she was in possession of the property of the plaintiff as admitted and she is in permissive possession in the first floor and thereafter after the difference arises between them went to the ground floor premises and this Court also pointed out that no material to show that she was a tenant under D.W.2 and also nothing is placed on record that she was a tenant under the plaintiff also. But, the fact is that she is in occupation of the premises belongs to the plaintiff and she was permitted to reside in the premises belongs to the plaintiff is clear in view of admission. When such being the case, the handwriting expert opinion along with the other material could be considered and hence the defence cannot be accepted and the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 falsifies their defence in view of the admissions and no material are placed before the Court to substantiate their 70 contention and no sale agreement before the execution of Ex.D15 and hence these judgments will not come to the aid of respondent and the earlier pleading and admission not the conclusive proof and court to take evidence available on record in toto. 53. Before concluding the matter, this Court would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court reported in MANU/SC/1222/2011 in the case of SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS decided on 11.10.2011 wherein a discussion was made with regard to the value attached to the sale agreement and GPA. While discussing the same, taken note of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act which defines ‘sales’ as well as Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act which defines ‘part performance’ and so also discussed Section 17 of the Registration Act, which makes a deed of conveyance compulsorily registerable. Having discussed the same, it is very clear that a contract of sale, 71 that is, an agreement of sale does not , of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property and so also the power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him. It is important to note that the immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of GAP sales or sale agreement/GPA/Will transfers do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent 72 of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. 54. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in MANU/SC/0387/2003 in the case of RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYA vs ANIL PANJWANI decided on 05.05.2003 wherein discussion was made that if a person has entered into possession over immovable property under a contract for sale and is in peaceful and settled possession of the property with the consent of the person in whom vests the title, he is entitled to protect his possession against the whole world, excepting a person having a title better than what he or his vendor possesses. If he is in possession of the property in part performance of contract for sale and the requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act are satisfied, he may protect his possession even against the true owner. 73 55. The Apex Court also in the recent judgment reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1208 in VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD., vs MAHAVEER LUNIA AND OTHERS discussed scope of power of attorney do not convey title, but recognises limited extent of Section 53A of TP Act and possession to be protected. 56. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that as per the Commissioner report; document of sale agreement, GAP and affidavit are with the signature of Chikkamuniyappa who is the original owner of the property. In view of these judgments, the possession under contract which was given as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act has to be protected. Apart from that it is clear that the documents which have been executed by the original owner were not cancelled either the sale agreement or the GPA and without canceling the same, indulged in creation of sale deed which is marked as Ex.D15 which cannot be done and the said document is collusive and 74 sham document and the same is executed without the possession. Having discussed in detail the material on record, it discloses that the said document is a sham document and created in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and with and with Seenappa who is the friend of Chikkamuniyappa. Hence, no value can be attached to the said document. When this Court comes to such a conclusion that no value can be attached to the said document and based on the power of attorney executed in favour of the husband of the plaintiff by defendant No.2, Chikkamuniyappa who is the original owner, rights given for selling of property and for construction of the building and building was also constructed by husband of plaintiff and the same is in possession of the plaintiff and based on the said GPA which was not cancelled, executed the document in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court can recognize the said sale deed as a document registered by the agent of defendant No.2. In view of the registration of the said 75 document, there is a transaction of sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property, thus, the plaintiff can be declared as a owner of the property. 57. The Trial Court Committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the case and also committed an error in dismissing the suit instead of considering the material available on record. Hence, I answer all the points Nos.1, 2 and 4 as affirmative holding that Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit in coming to the conclusion that sale deed dated 26.02.2004 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not null and void since the material discloses that document of sale deed is created at the instance of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with Seenappa to trouble the plaintiff and the documents which have been placed on record clearly establish that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property since plan is obtained, sanction of NOC for obtaining the electricity connection was also 76 taken from the concerned authority and electricity connection was taken immediately after the construction of the building. Though defendant No.1 claims that defendant No.2 had constructed the building in the year 1990, nothing is placed on record to prove the same and to show that defendant No.1 was also a tenant under defendant No.2, nothing was placed on record and in respect of other tenants also, no receipt or rental agreements are also produced. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and ought to have granted relief for declaration and permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff as there is a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as well as earlier under Section 53A Part performance of the contract possession was given. Though sale deed at Ex.D15 is a registered one and the same is a created document between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same is a sham document in view of collusion and no possession with defendant No.2 to deliver the same to defendant No.1. 77 In fact, the building is constructed by the plaintiff’s husband and let out the premises to the tenants. The document of Ex.D15 does not create any right in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as the same is collusive and sham document. Hence, answered all the Point Nos.1, 2 and 4 as affirmative. The damages cannot be quantified in the absence of any sufficient material and the appellant is given liberty to take possession in accordance with law inclusive of damages and the same requires an enquiry. Point No.1 in HRRP Nos.136/2011 and 115/2011: 58. This Court has framed Point No.1 as whether the Trial Court committed an error in allowing HRC No.554/2005. Both the counsels also made submission that the decision of HRRPs are subject to the result of the decision of this Court to be passed in RFA No.160/2021 and this Court has given the finding that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit and this Court reversed judgment of the Trial Court by granting the relief 78 of declaration as well as permanent injunction in favour of the appellant having perused the material available on record in coming to the conclusion that while dismissing the suit, the Trial Court erroneously proceeded to comes to a conclusion that a jural relationship has been established and allowed the HRC No.554/2005 and there is no any rental agreement as well as the rental receipt. In the absence of such a rental agreement and rental receipt, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the HRC No.554/2005 since, first of all the jural relationship has not been established and nothing was also considered regarding the jural relationship and carried away in view of the finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.9741/2006 and granted the relief and hence the same requires interference of this Court and hence, the order passed by the Trial Court in the HRC No.554/2005 is requires to be set aside by answering the same as the affirmative. 79 Point No.2 in HRRP Nos.136/2011 and 115/2011: 59. The second point is whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing HRC No.609/2006 dismissing the same as not maintainable and whether it requires interference of his Court. Both the counsels have made the submission before this Court while arguing RFA No.160/2021 that the same is also subjected to the result of the RFA and this Court answered the Point Nos.1, 2 and 4 as affirmative while considering RFA No.160/2021 and comes to the conclusion that document of sale deed of the year 2004 which was claimed by the defendants is created in collusion with the defendants inter se that is defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same is a sham document and no right was existed with defendant No.2 in view of execution of the documents at Ex.P21 to P23 and also in view of the report of the commissioner as the signatures are held to be the signatures of defendant No.2, the GPA and sale agreement are not cancelled and so also the possession was not with 80 the vendor i.e., defendant No.2 since under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, possession with the petitioner. The clear admission of DW1 and DW2 was also taken in the proceedings that they have not produced any documentary proof with regard to the tenants as claimed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. On the other hand, the plaintiff, who filed the eviction petition against Seenappa also not produced the document of rental agreement and any rental receipt, though examined the witnesses in order to prove the jural relationship, no document is produced. The petitioner relied upon rent receipt but no signature of respondent. When this Court answered the Point Nos.1, 2 and 4 as affirmative in RFA No.160/2021, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in HRC No.609/2006 does not requires interference since jural relationship of tenancy not established but permitted defendant No.1 to reside in the premises as admitted by D.W.1 in original suit. Hence, petitioner is permitted to take possession from the 81 respondent and from his daughter by initiating separate suit and claim damages as his daughter admitted that she is in possession of plaintiffs/petitioner property. 60. In view of the discussions made about, I pass the following: ORDER The RFA No.160/2021 is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court in dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.9741/2006 is set aside and granted the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. HRRP No.115/2011 is allowed. The impugned order passed in HRC No.554/2005 is dismissed. HRRP No.136/2011 is dismissed and the petitioner is given liberty to initiate appropriate 82 proceedings to take possession and claim damages as jural relationship is not established, since defendant No.1 has admitted that she is in occupation of the petitioner/plaintiff’s property. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE RHS/ST/SN