- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2026 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. G. ANANTHARAMAN S/O. LATE K.P. GOPAL IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD NO. 76, NEW NO.2, CHBS, 3RD STAGE, (LAYOUT) VIJAYANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 040. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. G. ANJANA D/O. K. P. GOPAL IYENGAR W/O. A. S. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.130, VSCHS, SATHAGALLY LAYOUT, VIDYASHANKARA NAGAR MYSORE – 570 019. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V RANGARAMU, ADVOCATE)[CP 4753/26] Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2026 PASSED IN OS NO.3829/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-39) AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3829/2009 dated 09.02.2026 by the Court of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-39) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit filed for partition and separate possession is decreed by granting ½ share to the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that one K.P.Gopal Iyengar and K.G.Rukminiamma are the father and mother of plaintiff and defendant. Father died on 22.04.1993. Mother died on 24.10.1982. During life time of mother – Rukminiamma, one Bengaluru City Chikpet House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., which was duly approved by BDA had allotted suit schedule property in favour of mother – Rukminiamma and also possession was given on 18.10.1979 and executed sale deed in her favour on 23.10.1979. Rukminiamma died on 24.10.1982. Rukminamma made her husband – K.P. Gopal Iyengar as nominee. K.P. Gopal Iyengar died on 22.04.1993. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant are the only coparceners. Therefore, the plaintiff being sister of the defendant has filed a suit for partition by claiming ½ share in the suit schedule property. 4. The defendant has filed written statement and submitted that the plaintiff has executed indemnity bond and affidavit to the BDA transferring and alienating her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 rights in favour of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has relinquished her right and claim in favour of the defendant. Therefore, by virtue of the said affidavit and indemnity bond, the defendant has become absolute owner over the suit schedule property. Thus, the suit for partition is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in joint possession of the schedule property? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has voluntarily transferred and alienated the schedule property in his favour under Indemnity Bond and Joint Affidavit dated 10.01.1996? 3. Whether the Defendant proves that he has constructed super structure on the schedule property by spending a sum of Rs.11.20 lakhs? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the claim of the plaintiff hit by estoppels? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed? 6. What order or decree? 6. The General Power of Attorney who is the husband of the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P6. The defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D18. 7. The Trial Court has assigned reasons that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and also the property is joint family and ancestral property is also not in dispute. Further, though the plaintiff has executed affidavit and indemnity bond, that was only for change of name in khata but that cannot be construed as transferring and alienating the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, held that the suit schedule property is joint family property. hence, decreed the suit by granting ½ share to the plaintiff. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant has preferred the appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in consonance with the grounds raised, has submitted that the plaintiff has relinquished her share, right, interest and title by executing indemnity bond and affidavit before the BDA authority and therefore, the plaintiff do not have any right or claim over the suit schedule property. When this being the fact, the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and thus, has given perverse finding. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that whatever affidavit and indemnity bond given to the BDA authority by the plaintiff that is only for no objection by the plaintiff to mutate the name of the defendant in the khata and that does not mean to transferring and alienating the right, title, interest - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 and claim over the property by the plaintiff and this is well appreciated by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court has decreed the suit. Hence, justified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Upon hearing the arguments by learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the affidavit and indemnity bond executed by the plaintiff for giving no objection to mutate the name of the defendant in the khata amounts to transferring and alienating the title in favour of the defendant? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstance involved in the case, the defendant proves that the evidence given by the General Power of Attorney on behalf of the plaintiff is legally nonest and thus, not liable for appreciating evidence?. 3. Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court requires interference by this Court? Negative - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 11. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendant being the daughter and son of Sri. K.P.Gopal Iyengar and K.G.Rukminiamma is also not in dispute. It is also not disputed that Bengalure City Chikpet House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., which was duly approved by BDA has allotted a site in favour of mother Rukminiamma and registered sale deed executed in her favour on 23.10.1979. All these facts are not disputed. The mother – Rukminiamma died on 24.10.1982 and father died on 22.04.1983. This fact is not disputed. Therefore, the property is proved to be joint family and ancestral property. It is the case of the defendant that after demise of mother – Rukminiamma, there is necessity of mutating the name of owner in the khata as mother died. Therefore, the plaintiff had executed affidavit and indemnity bond by saying no objection to mutate the name of defendant in the records pertaining to suit schedule property. Therefore, argued that these documents constitute transfer of title in favour - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 of defendant. But upon considering the affidavit and indemnity bond at Exs.D3 to D5 as discussed and appreciated by the Trial Court, there is no specific proforma issued by the BDA that receives no objection for mutating the name of legal heirs of Rukminiamma. In this context, the plaintiff has executed an affidavit and indemnity bond saying no objection to mutate the name of the defendant in the khata and other revenue records. Therefore, these documents shall not always be construed as a transfer of title from the plaintiff to the defendant, at the most, these documents are meant no objection by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant consenting to mutate the name of the defendant in the khata. The transfer of property always shall be made through registered instrument as per Indian Registration Act, 1908 or any other mode as recognized by law. Here just because the plaintiff has given no objection to mutate the name of the defendant in the khata and other revenue records that does not amount to conveyance of transferring title in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 favour of the defendant. Therefore, in this regard, the evidence appreciated by the Trial Court is found to be correct and do not find any perversity in appreciation of the evidence. 12. Though the husband of the plaintiff being the GPA holder of plaintiff is PW.1 cannot be termed as not competent person to depose evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. PW.1, being the GPA holder has personal knowledge regarding the case as he being the husband of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manisha Mahendra Gala and others vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and others1 and argued that PW.1 is not competent person to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as he is not having personal knowledge about the case. At paragraphs 28 and 29, it is observed as follows: 1 (2024) 6 SCC 130 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 “28. The law as understood earlier was that a General Power of Attorney holder though can appear, plead and act on behalf of a party he represents but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party represented by him as no one can delegate his power to appear in the witness box to another party. However, subsequently in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., this Court held that the Power of Attorney holder can maintain a plaint on behalf of the person he represents provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction in question. It was opined that the Power-of- Attorney holder or the legal representative should have knowledge about the transaction in question so as to bring on record the truth in relation to the grievance or the offence. However, to resolve the controversy with regard to the powers of the General Power-of-Attorney holder to depose on behalf of the person he represents, this Court upon consideration of all previous relevant decisions on the aspect including that of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani in A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra concluded by upholding the principle of law laid down in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and clarified that Power-of-Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court but he must have witnessed the transaction as an agent and must have due knowledge about it. The Power-of-Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power-of-Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub- delegation. 29. It is, therefore, settled in law that Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents or about the facts that may have transpired much before he entered the scene. The aforesaid Power-of-Attorney holder PW-1 had clearly deposed that he is giving evidence on behalf of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. the Gala's. He was not having any authority to act as the Power of Attorney of the Gala's at the time his statement was recorded. He was granted Power of Attorney subsequently as submitted and accepted by the parties. Therefore, his evidence is completely meaningless to establish that Gala's have acquired or perfected any easementary right over the disputed rasta in 1994 when the suit was instituted.” 13. As per the principle of law laid down in the case as above stated, if GPA holder is having personal knowledge about the transactions of case, is competent to give evidence being a GPA holder. Therefore, PW.1 being husband of plaintiff is having personal knowledge. Therefore, he is found to be competent person to depose evidence in the suit. 14. Therefore, on the above said discussions on the two counts raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant, there is no illegality found in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, I answer to points in the negative. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32795 RFA No. 784 of 2026 ORDER 1. The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. 2. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3829/2009 dated 09.02.2026 by the Court of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-39) is hereby confirmed. 3. Liberty is given to the defendant/appellant to work out his remedy in final decree proceedings as per law and FDP Court shall consider the same in accordance with law protecting rights of both the parties. 4. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58