- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. JOHN IMAN VELLU J S/O JAYACHANDRA P AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO 42, 1ST CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, HOSAKEREHALLI BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU 560085. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. HEMALALATHA K M W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO 192, 2ND CROSS, ANANTHARAMAIAH COMPOUND, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU 560018. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2024, PASSED IN O.S.NO.1984/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2024, passed by the XXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the trial Court’), in O.S.No.1984/2022, wherein the suit filed for permanent injunction is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant claiming that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property bearing site No.80, BBMP Khata No.2/3/80, Ittamadu village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same through a registered Sale - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 Deed dated 24.02.2022, through the General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri G.Rangaswamy - original owner, for a valuable consideration. Therefore, alleging interference by the defendant, the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction. 4. In response to the suit summons served upon her, the defendant entered appearance and filed her written statement, denying the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from one Imanuvelu, who is the General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri G.Rangaswamy. It is further alleged in the written statement that the said Sale Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by playing fraud as the owner - G.Rangaswamy died on 02.03.2012 itself. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that he had purchased the suit property through registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.2022 is not valid in the eye of law. 5. It is further submitted that, defendant had purchased the suit property from one Kirshnappa, through - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.1999 and he is in lawful possession of the same. It is submitted that, alleging interference by one Munivenkata Rao, the defendant had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.4970/2000 for permanent injunction and said Munivenkata Rao had also filed a suit in O.S.No.4572/2000 against the defendant and Krishnappa in respect of suit property. The suit filed by the defendant came to be decreed and the suit filed by Munivenkata Rao was dismissed. Thus, by virtue of the said decree, the defendant has been declared as owner and in possession of the suit property. Therefore, in view of this, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant? 4. What order or decree? 7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined one witness as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-10. The defendant examined DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-26. 8. The trial Court after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, has observed that, one Imanuvelu was the GPA Holder of Sri G.Rangaswamy. The said Rangaswamy died on 02.03.2012. The said Imanuvelu being the GPA Holder of G.Rangaswamy, had sold the suit property in favour of plaintiff on 24.02.2022. Therefore, the trial Court held that, upon the death of the executant of the GPA, the GPA automatically stood terminated and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 became void in the eyes of law. Consequently, the GPA holder had no authority to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. 9. The trial Court further observed that, by the time the plaintiff paid the sale consideration, Rangaswamy had already passed away. Therefore, no particulars have been furnished as to how the sale consideration was paid to a deceased person. It was further observed that, by virtue of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4970/2000, the defendant became the owner and in possession of the suit property. Therefore, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner and also in possession of the suit property and hence, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 11. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.2022, which was executed by registered GPA Holder of original owner- G.Rangaswamy. Learned counsel further submitted that plaintiff was not given an opportunity to cross-examine DW-1 before the trial Court, therefore, on this ground also, prays to remand the matter to the trial Court to enable the plaintiff to cross-examine DW-1. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that, earlier defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.6826/2019 against the legal heirs of Munivenkata Rao for declaration of her title. The said suit came to be decreed, recognizing the defendant as the owner of the suit property. The defendant had purchased the suit property on 25.02.1999 i.e., much earlier to the plaintiff's Sale Deed and at that time, Rangaswamy was alive. Therefore, in view of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4970/2000, the defendant is proved to be the owner and in possession of the suit property. Therefore, there is no perversity in the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. After hearing learned counsel for both side, the following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit property being the owner and having the title over the suit property? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference by this Court? (iii) What order or decree? I answer the points as under : Point No.1 - In the negative. Point No.2 - In the negative. 14. The plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction by contending that, as per Ex.P-2 registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.2022, the plaintiff is the owner and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 in possession of the suit property. But, the defendant has produced the Sale Deed dated 25.02.1999 and has also produced tax paid receipts, BBMP letter and other documents, which are marked as exhibits in the suit, showing that defendant is the owner and he is also in possession of the suit property. As observed by the trial Court in the judgment, one G.Rangaswamy had executed GPA in favour of Imanuvelu. Said Rangaswamy died on 02.03.2012. After the death of Rangaswamy and after a period of ten years, Imanuvelu had executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff being a GPA holder of Rangaswamy. But, Rangaswamy died on 02.03.2012. Therefore, upon his death, the GPA gets automatically terminated. However, Imanuvelu continued to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in holding that the Sale Deed executed by him is not valid in the eye of law. Though the GPA is registered, but, on the death of the executant, it will get automatically terminated, therefore, he is not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 permitted to make transactions based on the GPA. Hence, the trial Court has rightly held that the Sale Deed dated 24.02.2022 executed in favour of plaintiff by Imanuvelu is not valid. 15. Further, the trial Court also has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that amount of sale consideration is paid to Rangaswamy. By the time the Sale Deed came to be executed, Rangaswamy was not alive. Therefore, by appreciating the evidence placed on record, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that some fraud has been played on the plaintiff by the said GPA holder. 16. The trial Court has also observed that the defendant had filed suit in O.S.No.4970/2000 against Munivenkata Rao and Munivenkata Rao had also filed a suit in O.S.No.4572/2000 against the defendant. The suit filed by the defendant came to be decreed and the suit filed by Munivenkata Rao was dismissed. Against these decrees, the legal heirs of Munivenkata Rao have filed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 RFA.No.671/2008 and RFA.No.672/2008 before this Court and the said appeals came to be dismissed by this Court by the order dated 27.11.2018. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4570/2000 has attained finality. 17. Further the defendant had filed O.S.No.6826/2019 against the legal heirs of Munivenkata Rao for declaration of title and the said suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2021, declaring the defendant as the owner in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Even the defendant has obtained decree in the comprehensive suit filed for declaration and also for recognition of the suit property, therefore, the instant suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable technically, as well as on its merits. Therefore, appreciating all these evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish his case for grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26237 RFA No. 1006 of 2024 18. After appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as the plaintiff has failed to prove his case for grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2024, passed by the XXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in O.S.No.1984/2022, is confirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47