- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2352 OF 2007 (DEC) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1650 OF 2015 (INJ) IN R.F.A. NO. 2352/2007 BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE A PUTTASWAMY R/AT NO.30 NEW NO.356 2ND CROSS, MUNESWARA BLOCK AVALAHALLI EXTENSION GEF POST, BANGALORE - 560 026. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI Y K KAMBAIAH S/O KAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HINDU, R/AT NO.341, PIPELINE SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050. 2 . SMT K V LEEAVATHI W/O Y K KAMBAIAH HINDU, MAJOR R/AT NO.341, PILE LINE SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050. 3 . SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S/O Y K KAMBAIAH Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HINDU, MAJOR R/AT NO.341 PIPE LINE SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B ROOPESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3.) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6563/95 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. IN R.F.A. NO.1650 OF 2015 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . L. RAMACHANDRA S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 1 . SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2 . SHANKAR S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.30 NEW NO 356, 2ND CROSS MUNESHWARA BLOCK AVALAHALLI EXTENSION GEF POST, BANGALORE - 560 026. - 3 - 2. KESHAVA RAMACHANDRA S/O L. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.150 ROYAL TAILOR, 10TH MAIN SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B ROOPESHA FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4091/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-44), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.02.2026 FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) Appeal in RFA No.2352/2007 is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.6563/1995 on the file of XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as trial Court for brevity) by which, the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed seeking declaration that the deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 is illegal and without consideration. - 4 - 2. Appeal in RFA No.1650/2015 is by the defendants (plaintiff in OS. No.6563/1995) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed in O.S No. 4091/2012 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which the trial Court has decreed the said suit filed by one L Ramachandra and Keshava Ramachandra granting relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property; 3. Description of property subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.6563/1995 is as under; Schedule A: All that piece and parcel of the site and house property bearing No. 30 formed out of No. 44/2, New No. 356, Avalahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Corporation Division No.24, (New Division No.) Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore-560026, measuring East to West : 30 feet or 9.14 meters and North to South : 45 feet or 13.72 meters total 125.40 square metres bounded on the; East by : Site No.30/A, West by : Site No.29, North by : Road and South by : Site No.32. Schedule B: All that piece and parcel of the Eastern portion of the house premises bearing No.30 Formed in Survey No. 44/2 of Avalahalli Village, New No.356 second cross, Muneshwara block, Avalahalli Extension, Bangalore - 560026 measuring East to West : 15 feet and North to South : 45 feet consists of asbestos sheet roofed structure, bounded on: - 5 - East by : Vacant site (Halla) West by : Portion of same house property on occupation of plaintiff's North by : Road and South by : Private property. Brief facts of the case in O.S.No.6563/1995. 4. Case of the plaintiff-Jayamma is that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of Plaint 'A' Schedule property having purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 18.01.1980. That she had leased out plaint 'B' schedule property which is portion of plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of defendant No.1- Y K Kambaiah in terms of lease agreement dated 08.01.1993 on a monthly rent of ₹ 250 with advance payment of ₹7,500/-. That again on 21.03.1983 defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff paying further advance amount of ₹ 7,500/- requested the plaintiff to reduce to monthly rent to ₹ 225 per month. Accordingly, a fresh lease agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 4.1 Plaintiff had thereafter requested for enhancement of monthly rent to ₹ 300 to which defendant No.1 had requested not to enhance the rent instead to receive the further advance. Accordingly, on 23.08.1984 defendant No.1 paid additional - 6 - advance of ₹3,000 and entered into a fresh lease agreement. Thereafter, once again on 15.12.1984 defendant No.1 had paid ₹2,000/- additional advance and thus in aggregate had paid advance amount of ₹20,000/- and executed a fresh lease agreement dated 15.12.1984 for a term of 8 years on a monthly rent of ₹ 225/-. 4.2. That defendant No.1 failed and neglected to pay monthly rents from 12.01.1985, constraining the plaintiff to issue notice dated 14.06.1993 and also filing of an eviction petition in HRC No.2659/1993 on the file of Small Causes Court, Bengaluru (SCCH-4). That in response to the legal notice, defendant No.1 issued a reply alleging that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.09.1985 for a sale consideration of ₹26,500/- and the plaintiff had also executed a power of attorney in favour of K Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3, son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2-K.V.Leelavathi. That the said power of attorney holder had sold plaint 'B' schedule property in favour his mother defendant No.2 in terms of deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 for as sum of ₹30,000/-. The said document was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru. - 7 - 4.3. On receipt of the said reply dated 06.07.1993, plaintiff learnt that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by playing fraud, misrepresentation have obtained the registered deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 in the name of defendant No.2 through defendant No.3 on the basis of alleged power of attorney executed by the plaintiff. That plaintiff is illiterate, not being aware of the worldly affairs and taking undue advantage of her illiteracy, defendants had obtained her signature on the alleged agreement of sale and alleged power of attorney representing the same were the lease agreements in respect of plaint schedule property. 4.4. Plaintiff believing the representation made by the defendants had affixed her signature on the agreement of sale and power of attorney. Plaintiff had never executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.3 and she had not received any single paisa under alleged agreement of sale dated 19.09.1985. She had not executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3. That the power of attorney is not a registered document. As such, the same would not create any right, title, interest whatsoever in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. The said agreement of sale is barred by limitation. As such, the deed of sale dated - 8 - 10.09.1992 executed by defendant No.3 acting as power of attorney holder of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, void, without consideration and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. 4.5. Contending as above sought for judgment and decree against the defendants declaring the deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 as illegal without consideration, initiated by fraud and misrepresentation, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. And to declare plaintiff to be the absolute owner of plaint 'B' schedule property and directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the scheduled property to the plaintiff. 5. A written statement is filed by the defendants contending that; 5.1. the plaintiff is the owner of plaint 'A' schedule property out of which plaintiff had leased plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 on 08.01.1983 on a monthly rent of ₹ 250/- with advance amount of ₹ 7,500/- with a permission to construct a building on the vacant space. That on 21.03.1983 plaintiff and her husband had approached defendant No.1 requesting him to give another sum of ₹7,500/- as additional - 9 - advance and executed agreement on 21.03.1983. Under the said agreement rent was reduced to ₹225/- from ₹250/- since the advance was increased. Defendant No.1 constructed a building in the vacant space available between the aforesaid two rooms. Again on 23.08.1984 plaintiff expressed her financial difficulties and had requested for further sum of ₹ 3,000/- from defendant No.1 granting lease in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property for a period 8 years from 23.08.1984. An agreement in this regard was executed. 5.2. Again on 15.12.1984 plaintiff had taken further sum of ₹2,000/- from defendant No.1 executing another agreement on the said date. In the said agreement it was made clear that after expiry of lease, if plaintiff wanted to sell plaint 'B' schedule property she would sell the same in favour of defendant No.1. That if he was not willing to purchase, only then plaintiff would sell the same to third party. But even before the expiry of the lease, plaintiff offered to sell plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of defendants in order to meet her financial commitments. 5.3. Accordingly, on 04.04.1985 plaintiff and her husband entered into an agreement agreeing to sell the plaint 'B' schedule property in favour defendant No.3. Under the said - 10 - agreement plaintiff had undertaken to execute either the deed of sale or general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3 within 6 months from the date of sale agreement. Accordingly, on 19.09.1985 plaintiff had executed general power of attorney and an agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.3 by taking entire sale consideration in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property. 5.4. Under the said power of attorney plaintiff had empowered and authorized defendant No.3 to deal with the plaint 'B' schedule property in any manner he liked including right to convey the same as she had received the entire sale consideration. It is thereafter on 10.09.1992, K.Prasanna Kumar- defendant No.3 executed deed of sale in favour of defendant No.2 conveying plaint 'B' schedule property. Thereafter, khata in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property was also effected in the name of defendant No.2. Thus, defendant No.2 has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint 'B' schedule property as absolute owner thereof. 5.5. Defendants after becoming owners of the plaint 'B' schedule property have planted coconut tree which is started yielding. When it started yielding, plaintiff tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'B' schedule - 11 - property by the defendants constraining them to file suit in O.S.No.4316/1993. The trial Court in the said suit has directed both the parties to maintain status quo. Plaintiff suppressing the facts has filed an eviction petition in HRC No.2659/1993 against defendant No.1 seeking his eviction. Contending as above sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Trial Court based on the aforesaid pleadings framed the following issues; "1. Does plaintiff proves that agreement of sale and general power of attorney dated 19.09.1985 executed in favour of defendant No.3 were tainted with fraud and misrepresentation? 2. Does plaintiff prove that sale deed dated 10.09.1992 was without consideration and not binding on her? 3. Whether the valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid are insufficient? 4. Whether the plaintiff had no cause of action? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration of title and possession? 6. What order / decree.?" 7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and exhibited 14 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of defendants defendant No.1 has examined as DW.1 and two witnesses have been examined as DW2 to DW3. 14 documents have been marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D14. - 12 - 8. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence answered Issue Nos. 1 to 5 in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal in RFA No.2352/2007. Facts of the case in O.S.No. 4091/2012: 9. This suit is filed by one L. Ramachandra and his son Keshava Ramachandra against Jayamma the plaintiff in O.S.No. 6563/1995 and her son Shankar, contending that they are the absolute owners in possession of the property bearing No.30 Khata No.44 /2, measuring East to West: 15 feet and North to South: 45 feet situated at Avalahalli Village, Uttaralli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having purchased the same from K.N. Leelavathi the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.6563/1995 in terms of deed of sale dated 02.12.2011. The said defendant No.1- Jayamma, who was the earlier owner of the said property, was causing interference in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Hence the suit. 10. Written statement is filed by defendants in the said suit contending that the defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that she has not executed any agreement of sale or the power of attorney. The - 13 - said agreement of sale and the power of attorney are the concocted documents. The defendant No.1 has not executed any sale deed in favour of K. V. Leelavathi. As such K. V. Leelavathi could not have executed the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. Based on the pleading, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Do the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 2. Do the plaintiffs prove that there is interference by the defendants to their lawful possession over the suit property? 3. Do the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.? 4. What order or decree?" 12. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1 and 21 documents are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. Power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 has examined as DW.1 and 64 documents have been marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D64. 13. On appreciation of evidence, and taking note of dismissal of suit in O.S.No.6563/1995, trial Court answered Issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit granting relief of permanent injunction, restraining the - 14 - defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by judgment decree dated 19.11.2015. Being aggrieved, defendants are before this Court in RFA No.1650/2015. SUBMISSIONS: 14. Sri G. Balakrishna Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Jayamma reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeals submitted that; 14.1. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1- Y.K.Kamabaia was only with regard to grant of lease in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property. 14.2. No sale consideration has been paid by the defendants for the purpose of sale of plaint 'B' schedule property. 14.3. Power of attorney based on which K Prasanna Kumar- defendant No.3 executed the sale deed in favour of his mother K.V.Leelavathi- defendant No.2 is a void document. 14.4. He referred to cross examination of PW1 recorded on 03.12.2005 and 08.12.2005 wherein the plaintiff has denied the receipt of ₹6,500/- at the time of entering into document at Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 from the defendants. - 15 - 14.5. He referred to the evidence of DW.1 at paragraph 8 of his affidavit as well as his cross-examination recorded on 27.01.2006 and 18.03.2006 wherein he has spoken about payment of additional amount of ₹2,500/- while entering into the agreement of sale at Ex.P5 and regarding payment of sum of ₹22,500/- to submit that the same is contrary to the contents of Ex.P5 regarding payment of sale consideration as there is no reference to previous amount paid towards the lease advances. 14.6. That from the contents of the said Ex.P5 it is clear that sum of ₹22,500/- was not paid as on the date of Ex.P5. 14.7. That the plaintiff has disputed the signatures, execution and payment of amount as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and the defendants have not proved due execution of the said documents. Execution of deed of sale by defendant No.3 in favour of his mother defendant No.2 is a sham document. 14.8. DW2 and DW3 are the employees of DW1, as such their depositions are not trustworthy. 14.9. That there has been no compliance of requirement of Section 33 of the Registration Act as the General Power of Attorney has not been registered. - 16 - 14.10. He relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of SRI SRI SRI KISHORE CHANDRA SINGH DEO V. BABU GANESH PRASAD BHAGAT AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1954 SC 316. 14.11. Also the judgment of Apex Court in the case of KEWAL KRISHAN V. RAJESH KUMAR reported in AIR 2022 SC 564. Hence sought for allowing of the appeals. 15. Sri B. Roopesh, learned advocate appearing for the defendants, justifying the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court, submitted that; 15.1. The plaintiff has admitted execution of lease agreements dated 08.01.1983, 21.03.1983, 23.08.1984, and 15.12.1984 produced at Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 respectively. 15.2. That the plaintiff has also admitted receipt of ₹7,500/- under Ex.P1, ₹7,500/- under Ex.P2, ₹3,000/- under Ex.P3 and ₹ 2,000/- under Ex.P4, totalling in a sum of ₹ 20,000/-. 15.3. That when the plaintiff has admitted sum of ₹20,000/- under the lease agreements, the only dispute was with regard to receipt of ₹6,500/-. He referred to Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 to submit that under Ex.P5 a sum of ₹2,500/- is paid and under - 17 - Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 a sum of his ₹4,000/- is paid. Thus, aggregating in a sum of ₹26,500/-. 15.4. That property subject matter of the agreement to sell, general power of attorney and the deed of sale is measuring 15 feet X 45 feet which is equivalent to the market value existing then. That since the said amount of ₹26,500/- has been received and not refunded, the same has to be construed as the payment of full and final sale consideration. 15.5. That two of four witnesses namely, Dasachari, Lakkappa, M.S. Basavarajaiah and Nagabhushan Rao, to Exs.P1 to P7 have been examined as DW3 and DW2 who have fully supported the case of defendants in O.S.No.6563/1993. 15.6. Ex.P5 is an agreement of sale dated 04.04.1985 under which there is an admission of payment of ₹26,500/- with advance amount of ₹ 22,500/- and ₹ 4,000/- to be paid within 6 months, the said agreement was also executed in the presence of the very same four witnesses. Husband of the plaintiff is also witness to the said document. 15.7. Ex.P6 -general power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.3 who is son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is only to facilitate conveyance and to receive - 18 - the sale consideration. The said document has been notarised on 09.08.1985. 15.8. Witness to the said document have been examined as DW2 and DW3. Ex.P7 refers to sale consideration of ₹ 26,500/- 15.9. A Puttaswami, husband of the plaintiff is the witness to the said document. Other two witnesses are Sri. Dasachari and Sri. Y.K.Ramanna. 15.10. Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 read along with Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 corroborate the transaction of sale. 15.11. Ex.P8 is the deed of sale executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No.2. The dispute is raised after 8 years. 15.12. HRC No.2659/1993 is filed against the defendants. Husband of defendant No.2 died in the year 1992. No steps have been taken. 15.13. Property tax has been paid by the plaintiff only in respect of half of the suit property. 15.14. Plaintiff herself has produced photocopy of Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 along with the plaint and she has pleaded that she did not know how she got the Xerox copies. DW2 and DW3 have - 19 - supported the case of the defendants. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination. 15.15. ₹ 30,000/- mentioned in the deed of sale at Ex.P8 is a market value. 15.16. There is compliance of Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJANI TANDON V. DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR AND ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 782. 15.17. SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR reported in AIR 2012 SC 206. Hence seeks dismissal of the appeal. 16. Heard. Perused the records. 17. Points that arise for consideration are; "(1) Whether the plaintiff has proved that the execution and registration of deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and unsustainable for want of payment of sale consideration? (2) Whether the defendants prove that they have paid the sale consideration as claimed in the written statement?. (3) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.6563/1995? - 20 - (4) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4091/2012 are entitled for judgment and decree of permanent injunction in respect of suit 'B' schedule property? " Analysis and Discussion: Regarding Point Nos. 1 to 3: ,18. Facts that, (a) Plaintiff being the absolute owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property, of which plaint 'B' schedule property forms part of; (b) Plaintiff initially inducted defendant No.1- Y.K.Kambaiah as tenant in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property in terms of lease agreement dated 08.01.1983 on a monthly rent of ₹250/- by receiving advance of ₹7,500/- as per Ex.P1; (c) Subsequently plaintiff and defendant No.1 entering into similar lease agreements on 21.03.1983, 23.08.1984 and 15.12.1984 as per Ex.P2 to Ex.P4; and, (d) Plaintiff receiving an aggregate advance amount of ₹ 20,000/- in terms of the aforesaid lease agreements as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. are not in dispute. - 21 - 19. Plaintiff has seriously disputed she entering into agreement of sale dated 04.04.1985 as per Ex.P5 and she executing general power attorney dated 19.09.1985 in favour of defendant No.3 as per Ex.P6 as well as she entering into agreement of sale dated 19.09.1985 as per Ex.P7. She has also disputed the validity or otherwise of the deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 as per Ex.P8 as the same has been executed, without payment of sale consideration. Thus, the plaintiff has in her pleading as well as in her deposition has vehemently denied the receipt of sale consideration shown in Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. 20. Since plaintiff has disputed execution of Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 and also receipt of the sale consideration, the burden of proving the same is on defendants. 21. Defendant No.1 has referred to agreement dated 15.12.1984 produced at Ex.P4 to contend that in terms of said agreement at Ex.P4, plaintiff had agreed that defendant No.1 would be entitled to occupy plaint 'B' schedule property as a tenant for a period of 8 years, on a payment of monthly rent of ₹225/- and with an option to purchase of the said property. Terms of the said agreement is extracted hereunder; - 22 - "ಸ ಒಂದು ಾರದ ಒಂ ೈನೂರ ಎಂಬಾಲೇ ಇಸ,  ೆಂಬ ಾೇ ಾೕಖು ಹ"ೈದರಂದು (೧೫.೧೨.೧೯೮೪), )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು -., /ೆಂ0ೇ1ೌಡ ನಗರ, )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು-೫೬೦೦೧೯, ಮೆ ನಂ. ೨೨೨:೧, ಆ./ೆ. ಮಠ 9ೇನ:; <ಾಸ<ಾ=ದ> ಈಗ ಮೆ ನಂ. ೩೪೧, ೪ೇ /ಾAB, 0ೈC 9ೈ, DAೕನಗರ )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ೫೬೦೦೫೦ ರ:; <ಾಸ<ಾ=ರುವ 9ೇF DAೕ ಕಂಬಯIನವರ JೇಷL ಕುಾರMಾದ <ೈ./ೆ. ಕಂಬಯIನವ1ೆ: )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ದNಣ ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ಉತRರಹST ೋಬS, ಅವಲಹST 1ಾAಮ/ೆ ೇದ ಸ<ೆV ನಂ. ೈF, ಮುೇಶXರ ನಗರ )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ೫೬೦೦೨೬ ೈF.ನಂ. ೪೨:೨, ಮೆ ನಂ. ೩೫೬ ರ:; ಾ: <ಾಸ<ಾ=ರುವ ಎ. ಪZಟ\ ಾX]ಯವರ ಧಮVಪ_ DAೕಮ_ ಜಯಮa ಆದ ಾನು ಬMೆ- /ೊಟ\ -bರ ಸX_Rನ :ೕB ಕಂಷ ಕMಾರು ಕAಮ<ೇೆಂದMೆ, ಾನು )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು -., /ೆಂ0ೆ1ೌಡ ನಗರದ ದಾRೆAೕಯ ಎcdeೆಶ ೧ೇ /ಾAB, ೧೮೬ ೇ ನಂಬ ಮೆಯ:; <ಾಸ<ಾ=ರುವ 9ೇF _fa1ೌಡರ ಮಗ :ಂಗಯI ನವಂದ ಾ: ೧೮.೧.೧೯೮೦ ರ:; )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ಬಸವನಗು ಸg hಸ\ರ ರವರ ಕiೇಯ:; ೧ೇ ಬುಕು, ೧೧೭೦ ೇ <ಾಲುಂ, ೬೫-೬೭ ೇ ಪZಟಗಳ:; ೩೨೧೨ ೇ ನಂಬMಾ= hಸ\ರ ಆ=ರುವ ದ ಾR<ೇhನ ಮೂಲಕ ಪkೆ"ರುವ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡ lೆqÀÆåmನ:; ವರ<ಾ= ನಮೂ"-ರುವ ನಮa )ಾಬು ೈ.ನ:; ಪnವV ಾಗ/ೆ ಪnವV-ಪDoಮ ೧೫ ಅ( ಹ"ೈದು) ಉತRರ-ದNಣ ೪೫ ಆಗಳp ( ನಲವೆqದು ಅಗಳp) ಾತA ಇದರ:; ಒಂದು ಅಂಗ ಮೆ ಮತುR ಒಂದು ಾm, ಒಂದು ಅ1ೆ ಮೆ ಇರುೆ. ( ಈ :ೕB 1ೆ ಒಳಪ.\ರುತRrೆ) ಇದ/ೆ _ಂಗS1ೆ ಒಂದ/ೆ ೨೨೫/- ರೂ0ಾsಗS1ೆ (ಇನೂರು ಇಪtೆqದು) )ಾ1ೆ 1ೊತುR ಾ u]aಂದ ಇದರ ಅಂಗ<ಾ= ಅkಾXd ರೂಪದ: "ಾಂಕ ೨೧-೩-೧೯೮೩ ರ:; ೧೫,೦೦೦/- ರೂಗಳp ( ಹ"ೈದು ಾರ ರೂಗಳp) "ಾಂಕ ೨೩-೮-೮೪ ರ:; ೩,000/- ರೂಗಳp ( ಮೂರು ಾರ ರೂ0ಾ¬Äಗಳp ಾvರ) ಾಗು "ಾಂಕ ೧೫-೧೨-೮೪ ರ:; ೨,೦೦೦/- ರೂಗಳp ( ಎರಡು ಾರ ರೂ0ಾsಗಳp) ಒಟು\ ಈ ಪತAದ:; _S-ರುವ ಸX_Rನ fೕ9ೆ ೨೦,೦೦೦/- ( ಇಪtತುR ಾರ) ರೂ0ಾsಗಳನು ಪkೆ"ರುೆRೕೆ. ಇ:;ಂದ ಮುಂದ/ೆ ಎಂಟು (೮) ವಷVಗಳ ವMೆ1ೆ ಈ lೆಡೂIm ನ:; ನಮೂ"-ರುವ ಸXತುR ಪnವV-ಪDoಮ/ೆ ೧೫, ಉತRರ-ದNಣ/ೆ ೪೫ ಅಗಳp ಇರುವ ಮೆಯ :ೕB ಕಂಷ ಕMಾನ fೕMೆ1ೆ uಮa ವಶ/ೆ ಈ "ನ<ೆ w.\/ೊ.\ರುೆRೕೆ. lೆಡೂIm ಸX_R1ೆ uೕವZ ಆದMೆ ಪA_ _ಂಗಳp ೨೨೫/- (ಇನೂರ ಇಪtೆqದು) ರೂಗಳನು ಸದ ಮೆ1ೆ )ಾ1ೆxಾ= 0ಾವ_ ಾ ರDೕ" ಪkೆಯುವZದು. uೕವZ )ಾ1ೆಯನು ಪA_ _ಂಗಳp ೧೨ೇ ಾೕyೊಳ1ೆ 0ಾವ_ ಾಡುವZದು. ರDೕ" ನಹ )ಾ1ೆ /ೊ.\ದ>/ೆ )ಾಯ ಾಡು ವ1ೈMೆ ಮಂಜೂMಾಗತಕದಲ;. ಈ ಸX_Rನ:; uಮa :ೕB ಕMಾರು ಅ=AfಂFನ:; ನಮೂ"-ರುವ <ಾsrೆ ಮು=ಯುವMೆಗೂ xಾಗೂ xಾವ /ಾರಣ"ಂದಲೂ ಸಹ ಪರ)ಾMೆ ಾಡುವZ"ಲ;. ಾ1ೇಾದರು uಮa ಕMಾನ - 23 - ಒಳ1ೆ ಾನು ಪರ)ಾMೆ ಾದ>:; ನuಂದ uೕವZ ೨೦,೦೦೦/- ( ಇಪtತುR ಾರ) /ೆ ಬದ9ಾ= ಇದ>/ೆ ಇನೂ ಇಪtತುR ಾರ ರೂಗಳp (೨೦,೦೦೦/- ನು ೇ- ಒಟು\ ನಲವತುR ಾರ (೪೦,000/-) ರೂ ಗಳನು ಕ.\/ೊಡಲು ಒztರುೆRೕೆ. ಈ ಪತA/ೆ ಒಳಪ.\ರುವ ಸXತRನು uಮa <ಾsrೆ ಮು=ದ fೕ9ೆ ಪರ)ಾMೆ ಾಡ)ೇ/ಾ= ಬಂದ:; DAೕ <ೈ./ೆ. ಕಂಬಯI ನವರು ೆ1ೆದು/ೊಳpTವZrಾದMೆ ಅವರು ೆ1ೆದು /ೊಳTಬಹುದು (ಅಂ"ನ )ೆ9ೆ1ೆ) ಾ1ೇಾದರೂ uMಾಕ-ದMೆ ಅವರ ಕಂೕಷ :ೕB ಒಳಪ.\ರುವ ಹಣ (೨೦,೦೦೦/-) ಇಪtತುR ಾರ ರೂಗಳನು 0ಾವ_ ಾ ಾನು )ೇMೆಯವ1ೆ ಾರಲು ಇ{oಸುೆRೕೆ. ಈ ಮ|ೆI :ೕB1ೆ ಒಳಪ.\ರುವ ಮೆಯ fೕ9ೆ xಾವ ಾಲವನು ಾರುವZ"ಲ;. ಇವರ <ಾsrೆ ಮು=ಯುವMೆಗೂ ಸಹ ಾನು ಈ ಸX_Rನ fೕ9ೆ ಾಡುವZ"ಲ; ಎಂದು ನನ ಖುದು> Mಾhsಂದ ನನ ಪ_xಾದ DAೕ ಎ ಪZಟ\ ಾX] ರವರ ಸಮa_ ರುಜುವನು ಸಾ ಾ}-/ೊ.\ರುೆRೕೆ. ಈ :ೕB ಪತA/ೆ ಒಳಪ.\ರುವ ಒಟು\ ಹಣ ೨೦,೦೦೦/-ರೂಗಳp (ಇಪtತುR ಾರ ರೂ0ಾsಗಳp ಾತA) ಈ /ೆಳ1ೆ ಸ~ ಾ}ದವವರ ಸಮ•ಮದ:; ಒಂದು ರೂ0ಾs )ಾ} ಇಲ;rೆ ಪnತV ಹಣವನು ನಮa ಯಜಾನರ ಸಮುaಖದ:; ೆ1ೆದು /ೊಂರುೆRೕೆಂದು ಒzt ಸ~ ಾ/ೊ.\ರುೆRೕೆ." 22. Terms of the above agreement would indicate that the plaintiff had permitted defendant No.1 to occupy schedule 'B' Property for a period of eight years for the monthly payment of rent of ₹225/-. Plaintiff had further undertaken that she would not alienate the schedule 'B' Property untill expiry of the said term and if she intended to sell within the said period she would return ₹20,000/- advance with additional amount of ₹20,000/-. Further, an option was given to defendant No.1 to purchase the property after expiry of the lease term on then prevalent market value. - 24 - 23. Defendant No.1 further relied upon Ex.P5-agreement of sale dated 04.04.1985 in terms of which plaintiff has purportedly agreed to sell plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of K. Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3, son of defendant No.1 for a sum of ₹26,500/-. The said agreement further indicate that the plaintiff purportedly received a sum of ₹22,500/- from defendant No.3 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of ₹4,000/- within a period of one month and further purportedly agreed to execute and register the deed of sale either by herself or through her general power of attorney. Terms of the said agreement read as under; "ಸ ಒಂದು ಾರದ ಒಂ)ೈನೂರ ಎಂಬೈದು ಇಸ ಎzAm ಾೇ ಾೕಖು ಾಲರಲು; (೪.೪.೧೯೮೫), )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು -., ²æÃನಗರ 0ೈC 9ೈ ರ ೆR ಮೆ ನಂ. ೩೪೧, ರ:; <ಾಸ<ಾ=ರುವ <ೈ./ೆ. ಕಂಬಯIನವರ ಮಗ /ೆ. ಪAಸನ ಕುಾರ ರವ1ೆ )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು -. /ೆಂ0ೆ1ೌಡನಗರ ಸ]ೕಪದ ೪ೇ /ಾAಸು ೫೪ೇ ನಂಬ ಮೆಯ:; <ಾಸ<ಾ=ರುವ ಎ. ಪZಟ\ ಾX]ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ DAೕಮ_ ಜಯಮa ಆದ ಾನು ಬMೆ-/ೊಟ\ ಶುದ> ಕAಯದ ಅkಾXd ಕMಾರು ಕAಮ<ೇೆಂದMೆ, ಾನು ಇrೇ )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು -., /ೆಂ0ೆ1ೌಡ ನಗರದ ದಾRೆAೕಯ ಎcdeೆಶ ೧ೇ /ಾAB, ೧೮೬ ೇ ನಂಬ ಮೆಯ:; <ಾಸ<ಾ=ರುವ :ಂಗಯI ನವಂದ ಕAಯ ಪkೆದು ಾ: ೧೮.೧.೧೯೮೦ ರ:; )ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ಬಸವನಗು ಸg hಸ\ರ ರವರ ಕiೇಯ:; ೧ೇ ಬುಕು, ೧೧೭೦ ೇ <ಾಲುIಂ, ೬೫-೬೭ ೇ ಪZಟಗಳ:; ೩೨೧೨ ೇ ನಂಬMಾ= hಸ\ರ ಆ=ರುವ ದ ಾR<ೇhನ ಮೂಲಕ ಪkೆ"ರುವ ಾ: ನನ ಸX€ೕಾನುಭವದ:;ರುವ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡ lೆqÀÆåmನ:; ವರ<ಾ= ನಮೂ"-ರುವ -bರ ಸXತRನು ನನ ದರದು u]ತI ಜರೂರು ಹಣ )ೇ/ಾ=ರುವ ಪAಯುಕR ಈ "ವಸ uಮ1ೆ ಇಂಯ 1ೌನVfಂF - 25 - ರೂ.೨೬೫೦೦/-/ಇಪtಾRರು ಾರದ ಐದು ನೂರು ರೂ0ಾsಗS1ೆ ±ÀÄದ> ಕAಯ/ೆ /ೊಡಲು ಒzt ಈ "ವಸ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡ ಾNಗಳ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ತ]aಂದ ರೂ. ೨೨,೫೦೦ (ಇಪtೆRರಡು ಾರದ ಐದುನೂರು ರೂ0ಾsಗಳನು ಅkಾXd ಆ= ೆ1ೆದು/ೊAರುೆRೕೆ. )ಾ} ƒಬಲಗು ರೂ. ೪೦೦೦/- ಾಲು ಾರ ರೂಗಳನು ಈ ಾೕಖುಲ1ಾಯುR _ಂಗಳ<ಾ„>…ಳ1ಾ= 0ಾವ_ ಾ hಸ\ ಖ{Vಗ†ೆಲ;ವZ uೕ<ೇ ಾ}/ೊಂಡು ಕAಯ ಪತAವನು hಸ\ರ ಾ-/ೊಳTತಕದು, ಒಂದು <ೇ†ೆ ಾನು fೕಲಂಡ <ಾ„>…ಳ1ಾ= ತಮ1ೆ ಕAಯ ಪತAವಾಗ: ಅಥ<ಾ ಜನರm ಪವ ಆC ಅeಾuV ಅ€/ಾರ ಪತAವಾಗ: ತಮ1ೆ Mೆhಸ\ರ ಾ-/ೊಡrೇ ೋದ ಪ•ದ:; ಾವZ /ೊ.\ರುವ ಆkಾXd ƒಬಲ=ನ ಎರಡರಷು\ ƒಬಲಗನು ಕ.\/ೊಡುೆRೕೆಂದು ನನ ಮೋಖುದು> Mಾhsಂದ ಒzt ಬMೆ-/ೊಟು\ -bರ ಸX_Rನ ಶುದ> ಕAಯದ ಅkಾXd ಕMಾ ಸ~." 3 24. Perusal of the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 04.04.1985- Ex.P5 indicate that plaintiff -Jayamma purportedly agreed to convey plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of K.Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3 for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,500/-. The said agreement further indicate that a sum of Rs.22,500/- has been purportedly received by plaintiff- Jayamma on the date of agreement in the presence of the witnesses shown in the said agreement and has agreed to receive balance amount of Rs.4,000/- within a period of one month and on failure, she agreed to return the twice the amount she received. - 26 - 25. Witnesses to the said agreement are K.Lingaiah, Dasachari, M.S.Basavarajaiah, P Gopala and Y.K.Ramanna. None of the defendants are signatories to the said agreement at Ex.P5. 26. Ex.P6 is General Power of Attorney purportedly executed by plaintiff in favour of K.Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3 on 19.09.1985. In terms of the said power of attorney, plaintiff has purportedly authorized defendant No.3 amongst others, to convey the plaint 'B' schedule property by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease etc., and to receive the full consideration thereof and to complete all such transactions in respect of the scheduled property. 27. Witnesses to the said power of attorney are M.S.Basavarajaiah and Sri. K.R.Nagabhushan Rao, the said power of attorney does not bear the registered number of the notary. There is no mention in the said power of attorney with regard to the plaintiff entering into agreement with K.Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3 agreeing to sell the property in terms of Ex.P5. The reasons for granting power of attorney is plaintiff being occupied with her household and other occupation and unable to maintain and manage the property personally. - 27 - 28. Ex.P7 is sale agreement dated 19.09.1985 purportedly executed by plaintiff in favour of K.Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3. The said agreement records, plaintiff having sold the property to defendant No.3 for a sum of ₹26,500/-, having received the full sale price and also executing general power attorney by delivering vacant possession of the schedule 'B' property on 19.09.1985. The said agreement further notes that since Revenue land registrations are stopped by the Government, and whenever the same is revoked, the vendor would register the sale deed in favour of the purchaser at his costs without any refusal in this regard. 29. The said agreement is in English. The relevant portion of the said agreement is extracted hereunder; "This sale Agreement is made and entered at Bangalore on this dated 19.09.1985 by Smt. Jayamma W/o A Puttaswamy R/o :54, 4th Cross, Samirapura, K.G-Nagar, Bangalore, hereinafter called he Vendor of the one part and Sri. K. Prasanna Kumar s/o Y.K. Kambaiah r/o No. 341, Srinagar Pipeline Road, Bangalore hereinafter called the Purchaser of the other Part Witness as follows:- Whereas the Vendor is the sole and absolute owner of the property described in the schedule hereunder having required the same from Sri. Lingaiah by registered deed as No.3212 of 79.80 pages 65.67 volume 1170 of Book I on dated 18.1.1980 in the office of the sub-registrar, Basavanagudi Bangalore and the vendor has sold the property to purchaser for a sum of 26,500/- (Rs.Twenty Six thousand five hundred only) and having received the full sale price, the Vendor has executed a General Power of Attorney - 28 - by delivering the vacant possession of schedule property on this day. Presently the revenue land registration are stopped by the Government and whenever the same is revoked the vendor will register the sale deed to purchaser at this cost without any refusal in any manner. All expense of registration of schedule property shall be borne by purchaser alone. And if any defect or dispute arises inrespect of scheduled property in such case the vendor will set right the same at her own cost and risk." 30. Ex.P8 is the deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 executed by defendant No.3 as the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff in favour of his mother-defendant No.2. The sale consideration shown to have received under the said deed of sale is ₹30,000/-. 31. Defendant No.1 is neither a party nor signatory to Exs.P5, P6 and P7. 32. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have not entered the witness box. 33. Appropriate to refer to the deposition of defendant No.1 examined as DW.1 who in the cross-examination recorded on 18.03.2006 has deposed as under; "I now see Ex.P4 lease condition agreement dated 15.12.1984 and the site No. in the schedule is left blank. In relations to the payment of amounts made under the lease agreements Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 except those documents no separate receipts were executed. - 29 - It is false to suggest that Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are not valid documents. Even in relation to the payment of amount of Rs.22,500/- made under Ex.P5 Agreement dated 4.4.1985 except this document no separate receipt was executed. The amount of Rs.22,500/- mentioned in Ex.P5 includes the payments of amount mentioned in Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the date of Ex.P5 I did not pay Rs. 22,500/- to the plaintiff (Witnesses Volunteers: we paid Rs. 2,500/- to the plaintiff on the date of Ex.P5 and this fact is mentioned in Ex.P5) I now see Ex.P5 and there is no mention in Ex.P% that we paid Rs. 2,500/- to the plaintiff on that day. It is false to suggest that I tell lies easily. All the signatures in Ex.P5 were made in the house of the plaintiff. It is false to suggest that the signatures in Ex.P5 were not made in the residents of the plaintiff. It is false to suggest that the signatures in Ex.P5 were not made simultaneously. And It is false to suggest that signatures of K. Lingaiah, Dasachari and Puttaswamy have been made at one time and the remaining signatures have been made subsequently. It is not mentioned in Ex.P5 that out of amount Rs. 22,500/- mentioned in Ex.P5 the deposits already held by the plaintiff as per Ex.P1 to P4 was included defendant No.3 had not signed Ex.P5. it is false to suggest that no transactions had taken place between plaintiff and defendant No3 as mentioned in Ex.P5. It is false to suggest that plaintiff has not signed Ex.P.5. It is false suggest that Ex.P5 is a created document to deprive the plaintiff of her property. I got the agreement Ex.P5 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.3. I negotiated regarding the terms mentioned in Ex.P5. It is not mentioned in Ex.P5 that I got executed Ex.P5 from the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.3. There is nothing in Ex.P5 to show that I was present at the time of Ex.Ρ.5. It is false to suggest that no transaction had taken place as mentioned in Ex.P5 and no consideration has passed as mentioned in Ex.P.5. Since I gave Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 to an English typist for typing Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 have been typed in English, except Ex.P7 no separate receipt was executed in regard to the payment of amount mentioned therein defendant No.3 has not signed Ex.P7. It is false to suggest that plaintiff has not signed Ex.P7 and that we have created Ex.P7 to knock off the property of the plaintiff, and it is false to suggest that no amount was paid to the plaintiff on the date of Ex.P7 (Witnesses Volunteers: We have paid Rs. 4000/- to the plaintiff on the date of Ex.P7) I now see Ex.P7 and it is not mentioned in Ex.P7 that we paid Rs. 4000/- to the plaintiff on the date of Ex.P7 - 30 - (Witness Volunteers: This fact is mentioned in earlier agreement) It is not correct to suggest that is not mentioned in Ex.P.6 that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property in favour of the defendant No.3. It is false to suggest that plaintiff has not signed Ex.P.6 and that it is a created document. Notary registered No. is not mentioned in Ex.P.6, Now here it is mentioned in Ex.P6 that I was present at the time of Ex.P6. It is false to suggest that there was no prohibition for the registration of sale of Revenue property during the period of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. I now see Ex. P6 there is no endorsement to the effect that the contents of the same were explained and executed. It is false to suggest that the plaintiff was capable of coming to sub Register Office and executed any document during the period of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. It is false to suggest that the signature of puttaswamy appearing in Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 are not the signatures of the husband of the plaintiff. It is false suggest that the plaintiff has never agreed to sell her property in our favour, it is false to suggest that the plaintiff has not received any consideration in respect of the alleged sale transaction under Ex.P.5 to Ex.P7. I do not know if the sale deed executed by plaintiff vendor in favour of plaintiff has been set aside in O.S. No. 7801/1980 by judgment dated 6.12.2001 and that it has become final". 34. Thus, DW.1 has admitted that there are no separate receipts executed for payment of sale consideration and there is no mention of earlier payment to be considered as payment of sale consideration. 35. DW.3- Sri.K.R.Nagabhushan Rao, the witness to the said documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 to Ex.P8) in his affidavit evidence at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 has deposed as under; - 31 - "4. That again on 15-12-1984 the plaintiff by taking another sum Rs.2,000-00 from the first defendant executed a conditional lease agreement in his favour. The plaintiff's husband late A. Puttaswamy has also signed this agreement. Under this agreement, the plaintiff has undertaken that she would not sell the 'B' schedule property to any body and if it is necessitated to dispose of it, she would sell the same in favour of the 1st defendant only. 5. That on 04-04-1985 the plaintiff by taking an additional amount of Rs.2,500-00 from the defendants entered into an Advance Agreement to sale with the 3rd defendant Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar, who is the son of defendants No.1 and 2 thereby agreeing to sell the 'B' schedule property in his favour. Under this agreement, the plaintiff had undertaken to execute either an absolute sale deed or a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar within six months from the date of Advance Agreement. Under this agreement Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar had undertaken to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,000-00 to the plaintiff. 6. That on 19-09-1985 the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,000-00 from Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar executed the General Power of Attorney and agreement to sale in his favour. Both of us i.e., myself and Sri.M.S. Basavarajaiah are witnesses to the said General Power of Attorney and agreement to sale. The plaintiff's husband late A. Puttaswamy had also signed this agreement". 36. DW.2- Sri. M.S.Basavarajaiah, the witness to the said documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P8) in his affidavit evidence at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 has deposed as under; "4. That again on 15-12-1984 the plaintiff by taking another sum Rs.2,000-00 from the first defendant executed a conditional lease agreement in his favour. The plaintiff's husband late A. Puttaswamy has also signed this agreement. Under this agreement, the plaintiff has undertaken that she would not sell the 'B' schedule property to any body and if it is necessitated to dispose of it, she would sell the same in favour of the 1st defendant only. - 32 - 5. That on 04-04-1985 the plaintiff and her husband by taking an additional amount of Rs.2,500-00 from the defendants entered into an Advance Agreement to sale with the 3rd defendant Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar, who is the son of defendants No.1 and 2 thereby agreeing to sell the 'B' schedule property in favour of the said Sri. K.Prasanna Kumar. I am one of the witnesses to this advance sale agreement. Under this agreement, the plaintiff had undertaken to execute either an absolute sale deed or a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar within six months from the date of Advance Agreement. 6. That on 19-09-1985 the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,000-00 from Sri.K. Prasanna Kumar executed the General Power of Attorney and agreement to sale in his favour. Both of us i.e., myself and Sri.K.R.Nagabhushan Rao are witnesses to the said General Power of Attorney and agreement to sale. The plaintiff's husband late A. Puttaswamy had also signed this agreement". 37. While in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the said affidavits the said witnesses have categorically referred to payment of ₹7500/-, on 08.01.1983, ₹7500/- on 21.03.1983, ₹3,000/- on 23.08.1984 and ₹2,000/- on 15.12.1984 having been made by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The receipt of this amount is not disputed by the plaintiff. However, the said witnesses in paragraph 5 of their respective affidavits have stated that on 04.04.1985 plaintiff and her husband received additional amount of ₹ 2,500/- from defendants and had entered into advance agreement of sale with defendant No.3-K Prasanna Kumar, son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. At paragraph No.6 of their respective affidavits the said witnesses have deposed that - 33 - on 19.09.1985 plaintiff received balance sale consideration of ₹4,000/- from K.Prasanna Kumar-defendant No.3 and executed sale agreement in his favour. 38. Ex.P5 agreement of sale dated 04.04.1985 do not mention payment of ₹2,500/-, it only refers to plaintiff purportedly agreeing to sell the schedule 'B' property for ₹26,500/- and she receiving ₹22,500/- on the date of the said agreement in the presence of witnesses. There is no mention of parties taking into consideration the earlier amounts of ₹20,000/- paid by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff under Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. 39. Similarly, agreement of sale dated 19.9.1985 produced at Ex.P7 do not refer to defendant No.3 paying ₹4,000/-, it only speaks about plaintiff having received ₹26,500/- being full sale consideration. Even in the said agreement there is no whisper of parties agreeing to consider the earlier payment made under Exs.P1 to P4 as the sale consideration. 40. In the deed of sale at Ex.P8, the sale consideration is shown as ₹30,000/- and not ₹26,500/-. 41. These circumstances have not been explained by the defendants by leading cogent evidence. Defendant No.1 is - 34 - neither a party to the said transactions at Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 nor a person who claimed to have made the payment of ₹4,000/- and ₹2,000/- respectively as claimed by the defendants. As already noted, defendant No.1, who is examined as DW.1 has admitted that there is neither a separate receipt in respect of such payment nor there is any mention of payment of such amount under Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. 42. In view of these aspects of the matter only evidence regarding payment of ₹6,500/- is as spoken to by DW.2 and DW3. When the documents at Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 do not refer to payment of such amounts, oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 becomes untrustworthy. Besides admittedly they are the employees of defendant No.1. 43. Defendant No.3 has not signed documents at Ex.P5 to Ex.P7, which according to the defendants were executed by the plaintiff in his favour. Similarly, defendant No.1 is not party to the documents at Ex.P5 to Ex.P7, who claims to have negotiated and finalized the transactions. 44. Non-examination of defendants No.3 who allegedly paid ₹2,500/ and ₹4,000/- under Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 respectively - 35 - probabilizes the case of the plaintiff of she not being paid the said amount of sale consideration. 45. The Apex Court in the case of KEWAL KRISHAN V. RAJESH KUMAR reported in AIR 2022 SC 564, while dealing with provisions of Section 54 of the T.P. Act, in a case involving identical facts, at paragraph No.15 held has under: '' (15.) Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the TP Act") reads thus: "54. "Sale" defined. "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. -Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.- A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property." Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal - 36 - effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property. (16.) Now, coming back to the case in hand, both the sale deeds record that the sale consideration has been paid. That is the specific case of the respondents. It is the specific case made out in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are without consideration. It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchasers who were minor sons and wife of Sudarshan Kumar had no earning capacity. No evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration. Hence, the sale deeds/did not affect in any manner one half share of the appellant in the suit properties. In fact, such a transaction made by Sudarshan Kumar of selling the suit properties on the basis of the power of attorney of the appellant to his own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction. Thus, the sale deeds of 10th April 1981 will not confer any right, title and interest on Sudarshan Kumar's wife and children as the sale deeds will have to be ignored being void. It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. Hence, the issue of bar of limitation of the prayers for declaration incorporated by way of an amendment does not arise at all. The additional submissions made by the respondents on 16th November 2021 have no relevance at all.'' 46. Another aspect of the matter, which requires consideration is that under Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 plaintiff had admittedly granted monthly lease in favour of defendant No.1 on a monthly rental of ₹250/-, which was reduced to ₹225/- on payment of additional advance amount. Defendant No.3 is not - 37 - party to the said lease agreements. The purported sale agreements- Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 are shown to be made in favour of defendant No.3. Thus, the transactions subject matter of Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 admittedly entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the alleged transactions subject matter of Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 purportedly entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.3, even if it is to be accepted, are different and distinct. Unless, defendants establishes their case of express term between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 of the payment made by the defendant No.1 under Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 to the plaintiff to be treated as sale consideration for the alleged transactions between plaintiff and defendant No.3, defendants cannot claim that there was payment of sale consideration. As already noted above, neither the contents of Ex.P5, Ex.P7 nor of Ex.P8 would indicate such understanding between the parties. 47. Thus, the plaintiff has proved and established that she has not received any sale consideration under Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and the defendants have failed to prove that they having been paid the sale consideration of ₹26,500/- or ₹30,000/- as mentioned in Ex.P8. Sale deed is therefore illegal and not - 38 - binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court is therefore not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Regarding Point No.4: 48. As regards the relief of injunction granted in O.S.No.4091/2012, the said suit is filed by N. Ramachandra and Keshava Ramachandra who claimed to have purchased plaint 'B' schedule property from K.B. Leelavathi, the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.6563/1995, in terms of deed of sale dated 02.12.2011 during the pendency of present RFA No.2352/2007. The suit in O.S.No.4091/2012 has been decreed primarily on the ground of suit of Smt. Jayamma in O.S.No.6563/1995 having been dismissed. 49. In the light of aforesaid reasons and conclusion arrived at by this Court of defendants in O.S.No.6563/1995 having failed to prove and establish they having paid the sale consideration to plaintiff-Smt. Jayamma and their sale deed not being valid therefor, judgment and decree for permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs in O.S.No.4091/2012, subject matter of RFA No.1650/2015 cannot be sustained. Points raised above are answered accordingly. - 39 - 50. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, following; ORDER i. R.F.A.No.2352/2007 is allowed. ii. Judgment and decree dated 10.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.6563/1995 is set-aside. O.S.No.6563/1995 is decreed. It is declared that deed of sale dated 10.09.1992 as per Ex.P8 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff is declared to be the absolute owner of suit 'B' Schedule property. iii. Defendants are directed to deliver the vacant possession of suit 'B' Schedule property to the plaintiff. iv. RFA No.1650/2015 is allowed. v. Judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.4091/2012 is set aside. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU