Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49341 (KAR)

SRI C MANJUNATH v. SMT S VANAJA RAO

RFA/1745/2022 · 2026-01-07

S R Krishna Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1745 OF 2022 (DEC) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1419 OF 2022(DEC) IN RFA No. 1745/2022 BETWEEN: SRI C MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT SRI. LASKHMI VENKATESHWARA STORE KUMBAR ASTREET, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT S VANAJA RAO W/O LATE SRI. J. SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT.S. PADMAVATHI RAO D/O LATE SRI. J. SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. SRI. S. PARAMESHAR RAO S/O LATE SRI. J. SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT FLAT NO.7, BLOCK NO.8, AIR INDIA STAFF HOUSING COLONY MEENAMBAKAM CHENNAI 600 027. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 4. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O LATE SRI. ANNAIAHAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT DEVASANDRA VILLAGE K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 036. 5. SRI. MUNE GOWDA S/O SRI. VENKATARMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KADAHALLI VILLAGE AMMANALLUR POST, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTIRCT 563 101. 6. SRI. M.B. PATIL S/O SRI. BASAVANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEAWRS R/AT 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS JAKKASANDRA BENGALURU 560 034. 7. SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI W/O SRI. C. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BASVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, OPP. POLICE QUARTERS, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU 560 036. 8. SRI. K.V. VIJAY S/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT NO. 68, 2ND CROSS VIJAYA BANK COLONY, K.R PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.VANAJA RAO PARTY-IN-PERSON – R-1 SMT. S. PADMAVATHI RAO, PARTY- IN-PERSON – R-2 SRI. S. PARAMESHWARA RAO, PARTY-IN-PERSON –R-3 NOTICE TO R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8 ARE D/W, V/O/DT: 15.09.2025. SRI. SIDDESHWARA.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-7) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 19088 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2022 PASSED IN OS.No.26290/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 73RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALURU (CCH-74), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 IN RFA NO. 1419/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI W/O SRI C VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 12, 4TH CROSS BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD OPP POLICE QAURTERS K R PURAM BENGALURU -560 036. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S. VANAJA RAO W/O LATE SRI J SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YRS 2. MS S PADMAVATHI RAO D/O LATE SRI J SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 3. SRI S PARAMESHWAR RAO S/O LATE SRI J SUNDAR RAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.7, BLOCK NO.8 AIR INDIA STAFF HOUSING COLONY MEENAMBAKAM CHENNAI -600 027. 4. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANNAIHAPPA MAJOR R/AT DEVASANDRA VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU -560 036. 5. SRI M MUNE GOWDA S/O SRI VENKATAAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KADAHALLI VILLAGE AMMANALUR POST, VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 6. SRI M B PATIL S/O SRI BASAVANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YRS R/AT 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS JAKKASANDRA BENGALURU -560 034. 7. SRI C MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA STORE KUMBARA STREET, K R PURAM BENGALURU -560 036. 8. SRI K V VIJAY S/O SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO.68, 2ND CROSS VIJAYA BANK COLONY K R PURAM BENGALURU -560 036. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.VANAJA RAO PARTY-IN-PERSON – R-1 SMT. S. PADMAVATHI RAO, PARTY- IN-PERSON – R-2 SRI. S. PARAMESHWARA RAO, PARTY-IN-PERSON –R-3 NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-6, R-8 ARE D/W, V/O/DT: 04.06.2025. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO. 26290/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 73RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALURU (CCH-74), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THESE APPEALS ARE BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.10.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.26290/2013, whereby the said suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. 2. RFA No.1745/2022 is preferred by the 4th defendant, while RFA No.1419/2022 is preferred by the 5th defendant. The remaining defendants 1 to 3 and 6 had remained ex-parte in the suit and have not preferred any appeals before this Court. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rankings before the trial court. 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under: The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that they are the wife and children of late Sri.Sundar Rao, who acquired the suit schedule immovable property bearing No.12, ITI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 Notified area, Khata No.532/1/26/12 situated at K.R.Puram village, Bangalore South Taluk, BBMP Ward-52, Bangalore, vide registered sale deed dated 21.07.1991 executed in his favour by Smt.Narayanamma, GPA Holder of 1st defendant – Sri.Kenchappa, who had sold the suit schedule property in her favour vide GPA and Affidavit dated 19.11.1987 by receiving full sale consideration and put her in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was contended that pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 21.07.1991, the said Sri.Sundar Rao became the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and upon his demise on 07.04.2004, the plaintiffs succeeded to his estate and became the owners of the suit schedule property. It was contended that the khata has been registered in the name of the plaintiffs who are paying taxes. It was further contended that since the 4th defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.7669/2011 for permanent injunction and obtained an order of status-quo and only upon the 4th defendant filing his written statement and putting forth - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 false and frivolous contentions, the plaintiffs withdrew the said suit and instituted the present suit for declaration and other reliefs. 5. 5. It was contended that the 2nd defendant who did not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property had illegally and highhandedly executed illegal and invalid sale deed dated 22.08.2011 and rectification deed dated 04.10.2011 in favour of 3rd defendant, who in turn had executed an illegal and invalid sale deed dated 07.10.2011 in favour of 4th defendant, subsequent to which, the 4th defendant had executed an illegal and invalid sale deed in favour of 5th defendant. Under these circumstances, in view of the fraudulent, illegal and invalid documents created by the defendants, plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and direct the defendant No.5 to quit and vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs by demolishing the structure at the cost of defendant No.5. b) Consequently declare that the sale deed dated 22.8.2011, vide document No.2662/2011-12 of Book I, stored in CD No. KRID 371, registered before the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore and its rectification deed dated 4.10.2011, vide document No.3539/2011-12 of Book I, stored in CD No.KRID 377 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 claiming to be the General Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant No.1 is null and void and liable to be cancelled. e) Declare that the sale dated 7.10.2011. vide document No.3565/2011-12 of Book I, stored in CD No. KRID 377, registered before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 is null and void and liable to be cancelled. d) Declare that the sale deed dated 21.10.2011, vide document No.3834/2011-12 of Book I, stored in CD No. KRID 379. registered before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 is null and void and liable to be cancelled. e) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case together with cost in the interest of justice and equity.” 6. After service of summons, defendants 4 and 5 entered appearance through their counsel, while defendants 1 to 3 and 6 were placed ex-parte. Further, 5th defendant alone filed the written statement interalia disputing and denying the various allegations - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 and claim made by the plaintiffs. He contended that the 1st defendant had executed a GPA dated 07.03.1981 in favour of 2nd defendant who had executed a sale deed and rectification deed dated 22.08.2011 and 04.10.2011 respectively in favour of the 3rd defendant, who in turn had sold the suit schedule property in favour of 4th defendant vide sale deed dated 07.10.2011 in pursuance of which, the 4th defendant had sold the suit schedule property in favour of 5th defendant vide sale deed dated 21.10.2011, pursuant to which, the 5th defendant became the owner of the suit schedule property. It was therefore submitted that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, they are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as legal representative of deceased J.Sundar Rao to succeed his estate? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, they entitle for possession of the suit property from the defendant No.5? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, sale deed dated 22.08.2011 and rectification deed dated 04.10.2011, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 claiming to be the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 are liable to be declared null and void and canceled? 4. Whether plaintiff proves that, sale deed dated 07.10.2011 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 is liable to be declared as null and void and canceled? 5. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 21.10.2011 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 is liable to be declared as null and void and canceled? 6. Whether plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the plaint? 7. What order or decree?” 8. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P43 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs, while 5th defendant examined herself as DW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on her behalf. After hearing the parties, the trial court proceed to pass the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 defendants 4 and 5 are before this Court by way of the present appeals. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents 1 to 3 parties in-person and perused the material on record. 10. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeals:- (iii) Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants? (iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference in the present appeals? Re-Point Nos. 1 and 2: 11. Since both these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. 12. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the suit schedule property originally belonged to 1st defendant – Kenchappa. While appellant specifically contends that Kenchappa had executed GPA and Affidavit dated 19.11.1987 in favour of Smt.Narayanamma and put her in possession of the suit schedule property which was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 subsequently sold in favour of Sri.Sundar Rao, husband and father of plaintiffs respectively vide registered sale deed dated 21.07.1991, the 5th defendant contended that 1st defendant had executed a GPA in favour of 2nd defendant who had sold the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant who had in turn sold the same in favour of 4th defendant who had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the 5th defendant, who is contesting the suit. In order to establish their title and possession, the plaintiffs produced the GPA and Affidavit, both dated 19.11.1987 at Exs.P1 and P2 and the sale deed dated 21.07.1991 as Ex.P3 along with revenue records, khata certificate, tax paid receipts etc.,; however, the 5th defendant did not produce the alleged GPA dated 07.03.1981 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant; it follows therefrom that the 2nd defendant could not have executed the sale deed dated 22.08.2011 in favour of the 3rd defendant, who obviously could not have sold the property in favour of 4th defendant, who also was not entitled to execute any sale deed in favour of 5th defendant. Further, the 5th defendant has not produced any other material to establish his right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 12.1 It is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that the alleged sale deed dated 22.08.2011 said to have been executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant was much later than the sale deed dated 21.07.1991 executed in favour of Sri.Sundar Rao. Under these circumstances, by virtue of the principles contained in Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in upholding the claim of the plaintiffs and negatived the claim of the 5th defendant over the suit schedule property by answering all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs by holding as under:- “9. ISSUE No.1: Before examining materials on this issue, it is necessary to note that subject matter of the suit is specific immovable property. The issue involved is the title relating to specific immovable property. There are definite material documents to establish the title of the suit property. The documentary evidence, going by the rules of Evidence Act, excludes the oral evidence. Therefore, while examining the title to the property preference should be given to documentary evidence. At the same time, it is noticed that oral evidence has no significance in examining the corroborative value of the documentary evidence relating to title in this suit. It is also noticed in this proceedings that both the parties have led in the documentary evidence. Hence, for - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 the just determination of the issues in question, it is only documentary evidence that are essential to the issues. 10. The relevant documents to be considered for the plaintiff for this issue are Ex.P.1 to P.3, P.14 and P.15. Ex.P.1 is the power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in favour of one Narayanamma, Daughter of Channarayappa. Ex.P.2 is the affidavit of defendant No.1 re- enforcing Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney. Ex.P.3 is the sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 in favour of J.Sundar Rao, under whom plaintiffs herein are claiming title to the suit property. These documents are original. Originality of the document carry its own corroboration. These documents have to be appreciated for its content. Defendants challenging the claim of the plaintiffs have denied the contents of these documents. No doubt, denial of the defendants call upon the plaintiff to corroborate the facts. When the original documents are produced, they have to be accepted for its contents. The necessity of the corroboration depends upon the nature of denial also. The documents produced are found valid both in its contents and the procedures of its execution. 11. The power of attorney marked at Ex.P.1 is notarized, which is a statutory requirement for power of attorney. This power of attorney is not assailed on any of the valid grounds. There are no reasons to discard the document on one hand and its contents on the other. Executant of the power of attorney is defendant No.1, who, in the absence of denial of its content, is bound by the documents. Defendant - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 has not filed the written statement nor entered the witness box nor the contesting defendant has produced any relevant materials to appreciate the invalidity of the power of attorney. Therefore, Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney cannot be discarded without sufficient materials. This power of attorney does not confer the title. However, the power of attorney empowers the attorney holder to exercise all such rights and powers, which are so specifically mentioned in the power of attorney. Affidavit marked at Ex.P.2 has re-enforced the contents of power of attorney. To impeach the credibility of power of attorney, it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that, part of Ex.P.1 document is subjected to correction where the survey number of the property is mentioned. Therefore, certain amount ambiguity is attempted to be raised in the appreciation of evidence. Ex.P.2 Affidavit, which is prima facie contemporaneous to Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney has clearly disclosed the survey number very clearly. Thereby the ambiguity intended to be created on Ex.P.1 is clarified by Ex.P.2 Affidavit. Therefore, there are no reason to discard Ex.P.1 and P.2. Plaintiff relying upon these documents has produced the original documents. These documents are properly stamped, sealed and found to have been executed before competent authority. There are no reasons to disbelieve either the execution of the document or its content. 12. Ex.P.3 is the sale deed executed in favour of J.Sundar Rao, husband of plaintiff No.1, the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1. Ex.P.3 Sale Deed clearly describes the suit property and the intention to convey the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 title. This document is registered with jurisdictional Sub- Registrar, which is valid execution of the document. Thereby the transfer of title relating to the suit property is recorded. Thereby husband of plaintiff No.1 J.Sundar Rao had acquired the title to the suit property. 13. Based on said sale deed plaintiffs relying upon Ex.P.4 to P.13 have stated for getting the name of Sundar Rao being entered to the khatha extract and assessment extract for the local bodies. Thereby it is contended that Sundar Rao, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Ex.P.14 is the death certificate of Sundar Rao and Ex.P.15 is the legalheirship certificate, wherein the name of the plaintiffs as the wife and daughter and son of Late.Sundar Rao is certified by the Tahsildar of Tambaram Taluk Office. From these documents, plaintiffs not only claimed the title to the suit property and also asserted the flow of title from defendant No.1 through Narayanamma. 14. Defendants disputing the title and possession of the plaintiffs to the suit property have relied upon certain documents marked at Ex.P.24 to P.27. These are the sale deeds executed by defendants No.2, 3 and 4 in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 5 respectively. They are dated 22.08.2011, 07.10.2011 and 21.10.2011. The sale deed dated 22.08.2011 is executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 claiming to be the GPA holder of defendant No.1. Before examining other aspects, it is to be noticed that defendants are relying upon the sale deeds produced by the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 plaintiffs on one hand. Though defendant No.5 alone was examined for the defendants, herself has not produced the original document of title. It is only the certified copy of Ex.P.26 marked at Ex.D.1. Other sale deeds or the documents of title are not produced. It appears defendants are relying upon the presumption of registered documents. Such presumption by itself is not complete and absolute. 15. Though defendant No.5 in her evidence has marked the certified copy of rectification deed, but has not stated anything for not producing document of title. The certified copy of the sale deed produced by the plaintiff discloses the sale being registered between a vendor and a purchaser. Said registration is the presumption for execution of the sale deed. However, said registration by itself conveying the title cannot be accepted without the production of document of title on one hand and the title of the vendor being established. It is contended by the defendants No.2 to 6 that defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 07.03.1981. Said sale deed is not produced. The reason for non production of said sale deed is not coming out. Plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.08.2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 as a GPA holder of defendant No.1 is marked at Ex.P.24. Even said sale deed does not specifically disclose the manner of defendant No.2 acquiring the title to the property through defendant No.1 nor defendant No.1 is brought to be examined by the defendants. It is also stated that, to the sale deed dated 07.10.2011 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 defendant No.4, defendant No.1 is the consenting party. Thereby it is contended that defendant No.1 being consenting party to the sale in favour of defendant No.4, is a direct party to the sale in favour of defendant No.4. Thereby it is contended that sale deed in favour of J.Sundar Rao cannot be looked into. As observed above, the sale deed marked at Ex.P.3 is corroborated by Ex.P.1 and P.2 the power of attorney and the affidavit, which are prior in time and found in proper mode of its existence continue to hold the field. Hence, Ex.P.1 to P.3 acquire the lawful significance. 16. Even if defendant No.1 entering the witness box denying the execution of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cannot wipe out the evidentiary value unless based upon recognized legal grounds, such as fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion. Anyone of these grounds being established in connection with execution of Ex.P.1 and P.2 is not coming out nor they are legally terminated. These documents and its contents cannot be discarded. Therefore, defendant No.1 or other defendants No.2 to 6 claiming the title through defendant No.1 have heavy burden of disproving Ex.P.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney is not invalidated in any manner known to the law until the execution of Ex.P.3. Even if, Ex.P.1 is terminated after execution of Ex.P.3 same cannot invalidate Ex.P.3. Because, revocation of the power of attorney has to be appreciated from the date of its revocation. Therefore, the principal empowering the attorney holder has an obligation of ratifying all such acts of attorney holder, which are legally valid and permissible under such - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 power of attorney. Therefore, there are no reasons to discard the flow of title from Kenchappa, S/o.Annaiah to Sunder Rao and the plaintiffs through Narayanamma. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in Affirmative. 17. ISSUE No.2: Plaintiffs have claimed the possession of the suit property under the title acquired through Ex.P.1 to P.3. To substantiate the possession Ex.P.4 to P.17 and Ex.P.28 to P.40 are relied upon. Most of these documents are tax-paid receipts and the khatha extract. These documents coupled with documents of title established the possession following valid title. These materials are eclipsed by the facts disclosed in Ex.P.16 and P.18 to P.20 coupled with claim of the defendants canvassed in written statement. Accordingly, it is definite case of the plaintiff that defendant No.4 has trespassed and sunk a bore-well. This fact is canvassed even with the police authorities on 19.10.2011, perhaps much prior to the date of filing suit No.7669/11 wherein it is stated for defendant No.4 sinking a bore-well. This fact of drilling a bore-well is an effective act of dispossession or encroachment. Defendant No.5, contesting the claim of plaintiff, has stated about, defendant No.4 venturing with bore-well in the suit property. To substantiate said claim defendant relies upon Ex.D.5 Bore-well Bill. It is in the name of defendant No.5. However, it is clear that said bore-well being installed by plaintiff is not coming out. Now, defendants claiming the counter title as observed in issue No.1, have failed to establish the same. However, their act connected with the suit property have substantially affected the title and possession of the plaintiff. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 Any legal character to the said possession cannot be identified with the defendants. Therefore, defendants are only the trespassers liable to restore the property to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property. 18. Advocate for the plaintiff in this regard has relied upon judgment reported in 2017 (2) AKR 47 (B) between KSRTC, Bengaluru v/s B.T.Krishnamurthy, wherein the lordship dealing with the document issued by the competent authority in the course of official duty has held to be genuine unless and until proved to be forged. Thereby it is contended that Ex.P.15 is issued by executive Magistrate about the surviving family members. Thereby plaintiffs had claimed the right to succeed to the suit property. Even otherwise, plaintiffs are governed by Hindu Succession Act, wherein plaintiffs herein being the class-I heir enjoy the right of succession to the estate of J.Sundar, who died intestate. Hence, issue No.2 is answered in Affirmative. 19. ISSUE Nos.3, 4 & 5: Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 are based on validity of the sale transactions effected between defendants No.2 to 3, 3 to 4 and defendants No.4 to 5 on different dates. Acquisition of title by plaintiff in respect of suit property is contested by the defendants. The document of title and marketable title of the vendor are the vital facts to be considered. Origin of the title of suit property from Kenchappa, S/o.Annaiah is not in dispute. However, plaintiffs claim the flow of title through the power of attorney dated 19.11.1987 where as defendant No.2 claim the flow of title - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 based on the document dated 07.03.1981. Going by the pleadings defendant No.2 acquired the title prior in time. This pleading of defendant No.2 is not supported by valid evidence. Such contention of defendant No.2 cannot be accepted for the flow of title. Neither defendant No.1 nor the document of title of defendants No.2 to 5 are produced. Defendants No.1 to 4 being parties to the alleged alienations have withheld themselves from the proceedings for dubious reasons. Non production of documents of title of the defendants appears to have been intended to avoid legal consequences. In this regard counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1 between S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s Jagannath. Further ILR 2016 KAR 2529 and thereby observed that, fraud occurs by not disclosing relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. 20. Though defendants have categorically stated in their pleadings about transfer of title on different dates. Respective defendants have not produced original documents nor, brought in any cogent evidence to substantiate transferable title of the vendors under these sale deeds. Thereby these documents deserves to be nullified. 21. Among the defendants, defendant No.1 having executed the power of attorney and allowing to operate it for good length of time and later on being a consenting party to the registered transfer to the defendants has made out the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 fraudulent intention. This deserves appropriate penal action against defendant Nos.1 to 6. Hence copy of these findings shall be sent to Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, for initiating enquiry by appropriate agency of the State. Because, state recognizes the title and the court concerned shall be informed about the investigation once in 3 months till completing the investigation. 22. Existence of sale deeds dated 22.08.2011, 07.10.2011 and 21.10.2011, rectification deed dated 04.10.2011 marked at Ex.P.24 to P.27 are found without any valid title to the property under transfer. These documents by virtue of being registered carry the presumption of title. The factum of absence of intrinsic value of the document has to be recorded for effective nullity of these documents. In addition proper enquiry about the conduct of these defendants is essential to avoid any of other fraudulent transfers of the properties. Especially when defendant No.1 has stated in Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney and Ex.P.2 Affidavit about developing the layout and selling them to the other persons. In this context, at this stage, it is sufficient to serve the cause of justice that the sale deed dated 22.08.2011, rectification deed dated 04.10.2011 and sale deed dated 07.10.2011 and 21.10.2011 being declared as void and canceled, and an enquiry be conducted as observed above. Consequently, observations of these judgments shall be sent to jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and his official superiors to invalidate these documents as per the procedures of Registration Acts and Rules. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 23. Advocate for the defendants has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1165 (B) between Nair Service Society Ltd. v/s K.C.Alexander and others, wherein it is observed that presumption of title from possession can arise only where facts disclose no title in any party. This judgment is not helpful as both the parties are agitating for the title and plaintiff has produced better document of title than the defendant. Therefore, no benefit can be derived to the defendant under the judgment in question. Accordingly, issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 are answered in Affirmative.” 12.2 As can been from the aforesaid findings recorded in the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had produced legal and acceptable material to establish their right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and the 5th defendant had failed to establish her defence in accordance with law. 12.3 Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs in relation to the suit schedule property cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1557 RFA No. 1745 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 1419 of 2022 infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. 13. Accordingly, the appeals are devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.