Bangalore District Court
Smt.Akkayamma vs Sri. C.Damodaran on 31 March, 2021
1
O.S.NO.3257/2012
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2021.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.3257/2012
PLAINTIFF: 1. Smt.Akkayamma,
W/o Late S.M.Krishnappa,
Aged about 63 years,
No.32, Subbayanapalya,
Banaswadi main road,
Bangalore- 560033.
(By D.A. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri. C.Damodaran,
S/o. Chinnaswamy,
Aged about 75 years,
Residing at No.325/4,
8th cross, Jaijawan Nagar,
Subbayanapalya Extension,
M.S.Nagar (post)
Bangalore - 560033.
1(a). Smt.Amuda,
D/o late C.Damodaran,
aged about major.
2
O.S.NO.3257/2012
1(b) Rathan,
S/o late C.Damodaran,
Aged about major.
1(c). Babu,
S/o late C.Damodaran,
Aged about major
1(d) Smt.Saraswathi,
D/o late C.Damodaran,
Aged about major
1(e) Smt.Sujatha,
D/o late C.Damodaran,
Aged about major
All are residing at #325/4,
8th cross, Jaijawan Nagar,
Subbayanapalya Extension,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore- 560033.
2. D.Karthikeyan,
S/o. C.Damodaran,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.32, 8th cross,
Jaijawan Nagar,
Subbayanapalya Extension,
M.S.Nagar (post)
Bangalore - 560033.
3. Smt.Bharathi,
W/o. Karthikeyan,
Aged about 35 years,
Jaijawan Nagar,
Subbayanapalya Extension,
M.S.Nagar(post)
Bangalore -560033.
(D1(a) to (e) exparte
D2 & D3 S.J. Advocate)
3
O.S.NO.3257/2012
Date of Institution of the suit : 05-05-2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration, Possession
and Injunction
Date of commencement of : 28-11-2012
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-03-2021
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
08 10 26
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is before the Court for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 06-10-2004 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is null and void and not valid under law, for cost and such other reliefs and to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver the suit schedule property and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is that, she is the wife of one Late S.M.Krishnappa. The father-in-law of the 4 O.S.NO.3257/2012 plaintiff was one late Muniswamappa who was maintaining the joint family and possession of the ancestral property during his lifetime. After the death of Muniswamappa his sons got partitioned the joint family properties on 11-10-1980 and the plaintiff's husband got several properties to his share in the said deed. The said S.M.Krishnappa expired on 16-09-1999 leaving behind the properties which is got through the above said partition deed. After the death of late S.M.Krishnappa the plaintiff succeeded him as his legal heir. The suit schedule property bearing old khatha No.325, New Khatha No.325/4 property No.218 situated at Subbayyapalya, K.R.Puram Hobli, measuring East to West 50x30 measuring 1500 sq.ft. is one among the properties fallen to the share of Late Krishnappa. The plaintiff went to the BBMP Ward No.27 (old No.88) on 12-04-2004 and gave application to transfer the khatha to her name. They verified the records and informed orally that the defendant No.1 has already sold property on 06-10-2004 by using GPA bearing No.515/82-83 dated 29-06-1982. The registration of GPA was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff during the lifetime of her husband. The said GPA was 5 O.S.NO.3257/2012 used 5 years after the death of her husband. Hence using such invalid document and transferring of the plaintiff property is illegal act and sale void ab-initio. Further the defendant No.1 used the invalid GPA and sold suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 who are none other than the son and daughter-in-law respectively. The suit schedule property which is transferred by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 by using GPA after the death of plaintiff's husband is illegal and defendants colluded with each other to knock of the valuable property of the plaintiff. Hence the entire sale transaction needs to be set aside. The defendant No.1 has no legal right to make such transfer of property by using GPA of a deceased person. Hence plaintiff seeks to decree the suit.
3. The defendant No.1 who has appeared before the court After service of summons is also filed the written statement by contending that, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or facts of the case. The suit of the plaintiff barred by limitation and the same is filed after the belated time. And he has admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with S.M.Krishnappa and it is also admitted that 6 O.S.NO.3257/2012 partition deed dated 15-07-1981 and date of death of Krishnappa is not within the knowledge of the defendant No.1. He has admitted that, he has executed a sale deed on 06-10- 2004 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 to regularize the transaction and he was not knowing the date of death of the plaintiff's husband. And he has also stated that, he has not received any sale consideration from the defendant No.2 and
3. And he has denied that, he has colluded with plaintiff and he has not colluded with either defendant No.2 and 3. The defendant No.2 and 3 have severed and strained relationship with the 1st defendant, since they made an attempt to oust the 1st defendant out of the suit schedule property on good faith of holding it within house for benefit of joint family. But based on the very sale the defendant No.2 & 3 have demanded to evict the defendant No.1 in his old age, through the court process and defendant had only made a symbolic transfer which is not a sale in strict sense. The defendant No.1 has used the GPA without knowing the death of the plaintiff's husband. There is no cause of action for the suit. The defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property for more 30 years. 7
O.S.NO.3257/2012
4. And he is entitle for suit property even under the adverse possession and he has also filed counter claim and the plaintiff who is aware of the transaction, morally and legally bound to transfer the property in favour of this defendant and seeks to decree the suit in his favour.
5. Defendants No.2 & 3 have filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and contended that the suit of the plaintiff is wholly false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. And the same is with a sole and ultimate intention of harassing 2 nd & 3rd defendant. And they have contended that late S.M.Krishnappa had executed a registered GPA on 29-06-1982 in favour of C.Damodaran the defendant No.1 herein, since at that time there was no execution of sale deeds. Late S.M.Krishnappa has received the total sale consideration for the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1 and executed a registered GPA in his favour and the plaintiff was fully aware of the execution of GPA by her late husband and the total sale transaction. On 06-10-2004 the defendant No.1 who was the GPA holder of S.M.Krishnappa had executed an absolute sale 8 O.S.NO.3257/2012 deed bearing registration No. 18680/2004-2005 in favour of his son and his daughter-in-law i.e., the 2 nd & 3rd defendants for valuable consideration. The defendant No.1 had the legal right to make such a transfer of the suit schedule property by using the above said GPA and the plaintiff was well aware of the execution of the said GPA by her late husband. After execution of the absolute sale deed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd & 3rd defendants on 06-10-2004, the 1 st defendant requested the defendant No.2 and 3 three months time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Since the 1 st defendant is none other than the father of the 2nd defendant, he granted 3 months time to vacate the premises. Since the defendant No.1 had not vacated and handed over the vacant possession to the 2 nd and 3rd defendants even after a long time, have filed a suit for Eviction bearing in O.S.No. 17002/2005 before the Hon'ble City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore and the Hon'ble court was pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree on 05-01-2012 stating that the suit is decreed with costs declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant shall 9 O.S.NO.3257/2012 deliver the possession of the suit schedule property within 90 days. The 1st defendant preferred a RFA against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 17002/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka at Bangalore as against these defendants in RFA No. 357/2012 and by the order dated 09-04-2012 the RFA filed by the 1 st defendant came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and such being the case the first defendant or the plaintiffs herein have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property or any portion thereof. The Judgment and Decree passed on O.S.No.17002/2005 has become final in view of the Judgment and Decree passed in RFA No. 357/2012 dated 09- 04-2012 and as such the 1 st defendant is debarred from filing any counter claim in respect of the schedule property and the alleged counter claim made by the 1st defendant has no basis and the only intention of the 1st defendant in filing such a counter claim is to harass the defendants and put them into hardship and inconvenience.
6. It is further contended that, when the Hon'ble court has declared that these defendants are the owners in respect 10 O.S.NO.3257/2012 of the schedule property and also passed a decree of eviction as against the 1st defendant herein in respect of the schedule property. The allegation made by the 1 st defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he perfected his title by adverse possession and he has to be declared that he has entitled to the lawful possession of the schedule property are totally false and untenable and the 1 st defendant has not challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA 357/2012. it is further contended that, the 1 st defendant after knowing the Judgment and Decree passed by this court instead of complying the order, he has colluded with the plaintiff filed the suit only with a intention to harass and cause injury to the 2nd & 3rd defendant. And the plaintiff has filed the present suit in collusion with defendant only to snatch away suit schedule property from the 2 nd & 3rd defendants. With these contentions they seeks to dismiss the suit.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by my predecessor on 17-09-2012:-
1. Does the plaintiff prove that, she is the 11 O.S.NO.3257/2012 absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 on 06-10-2004 is null and void and not valid under the law for the reasons stated in the plaint?
3. Does the defendants No.2 and 3 prove that, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 17002/2005 against defendant No.1 is valid and it is binding on the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to comply the orders of the court in that suit as contended in the written statement?
4. Does the plaintiff prove that, she is entitled for the relief sought in the plaint?
5. What order or decree?
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Additional Issues are framed by my predecessor on 29-01-2013.
1. Does the defendant No.1 proves that, he derived his title to the suit schedule property on the basis of General Power of Attorney executed by deceased 12 O.S.NO.3257/2012 S.M.Krishnappa in his favour on 29-06-1982 as contended in the counter claim?
2. Does the defendant No.1 proves that, on 06-10-2004 he has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 with respect to the suit schedule property as a power of attorney holder of S.M.Krishnappa without knowing his death on 16-09-1999?
3. Does defendant No.1 proves that, the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is nominal and without consideration?
4. Does the defendant No.1 proves that, he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
5. Does the defendant No.1 proves that, plaintiff's suit is barred by time as contended in the counter claim?
6. Does the defendant No.1 proves that, he is entitle for the decree against the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property as contended in the counter claim?
9. To substantiate the contention of the plaint plaintiff herself has examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to P.4 are marked. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of the partition deed dated 11-10-1980, Ex.P.2 is death certificate of Krishnappa dated 17-09-1999, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of the GPA dated 29-06-1982, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of the sale deed dated 13 O.S.NO.3257/2012 06-10-2004.
10. From the defendants side defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to 17 are marked. Ex.D.1 is Original sale deed dated 06-10-2004, Ex.D.2 is khatha certificate, Ex.D.3 is khatha registration, Ex.D.4 & 5 are tax paid receipts, Ex.D.6 to 8 are EC's, Ex.D.9 receipt, Ex.D.10 Official memorandum dated 06-05-2005 issued by Bescom, Ex.D.11 is Original release deed dated 01-10- 2015, Ex.D.12 original confirmation deed dated 01-10- 2015, Ex.D.13 is agreement of sale dated 29-06-1982, Ex.D.14 is Original registered GPA dated 29-06-1982. Ex.D.15 is demand register extract, Ex.D.16 is certified copy of Judgment and Decree in passed in O.S.No.17002/2005, Ex.D.17 is certified copy of the Judgment passed in RFA No. 357/2012.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
12. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Negative 14 O.S.NO.3257/2012 Issue No.3: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.4: In the Negative Issue No.5: As per final order, for the following:-
13. My finding on the above Additional issues are :-
Addl. Issue No.1 to 6: Are not proved, REASONS
14. Issue No.1 and 2 :- Issue No.1 and 2 are taken together for the sake of convenience as they are interlinked.
15. The plaintiff is before court to declare the sale deed dated 06-10-2004 executed by the defendant No.1 in favor of the defendants No.2 & 3 is null and void and to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for possession of the suit schedule property and costs and such other reliefs.
16. The definite contention of the plaintiff is that, the suit property was fallen to the share of S.M.Krishnappa- the husband of the plaintiff in the family partition dated 11/10/1980 and he died on 16/9/1999, after the death of 15 O.S.NO.3257/2012 the husband she applied to the concerned authority to change the khatha of the suit property in her favor then she came to know that defendant No.1 has sold the suit property in favor of defendant No.2 & 3 on 6/10/2004 by using the GPA dated 29/06/1982 and said sale deed is invalid as the defendant No.1 was not having the power to alienate in view of the death of principal. 17. On the other hand the defendants No.2 & 3 have contended that they are the owners of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by the defendant No1 as a power of attorney holder.
18. Hence the theme of the plaintiffs case is that, suit property was sold on 6/10/2004 the basis of the GPA dated 29/06/1982 after the death of S.M.Krishnappa-the husband of the plaintiff and hence the same is invalid document and seeks to declare her as the absolute owner of the suit property and to declare the said sale deed as null and void and for possession.
19. When the plaintiff claims that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, she has to discharge 16 O.S.NO.3257/2012 the burden under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section.110, Burden if proof as to ownership,- when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
Admittedly in this case, the plaintiff claims she is the owner of the suit property and defendants are in possession of the suit property, hence the burden is heavily upon the plaintiff to prove that defendants are not the owners of the property.
20. There is no dispute that the suit property was allotted to the share of the husband of the plaintiff under the family partition. It is also not seriously disputed that the husband of the plaintiff has executed the registered GPA in favor of the defendant No.1. The dispute is that by using the said GPA the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed in favor of defendants No.2 & 3 after the death 17 O.S.NO.3257/2012 of the husband of the plaintiff and no valid title is passed onto the defendants, because the GPA is dated 29/06/1982 and husband of the plaintiff is died on 16/9/1999 and sale deed is executed on 6/10/2004. In this back drop let me examine whether the title passed on to defendants is valid or not?
21. The GPA dated 29/06/1982 is registered one and execution of the same is not disputed. The certified copy said GPA is produced at Ex.P.3 by the plaintiff and original is produced by the defendants at Ex.D.14. On careful examination of the Ex.D.14 it is clear that the husband of plaintiff - S.M.Krishnappa has executed the GPA in favor of the defendant No.1 to deal with the property including the sale. Since the said document is registered one, the sanctity of the same cannot be disputed and moreover plaintiff has not disputed the same. Apart from the GPA the husband of the plaintiff has also executed an agreement of sale on the same day i.e., on 29/06/1982 in respect of suit schedule property, which is produced at Ex.D.14, wherein it is clearly mentioned that, husband of the plaintiff has 18 O.S.NO.3257/2012 executed the registered general power of attorney to the agreement schedule property, and the possession of the property is also delivered and sale consideration amount of Rs 5000/- is received from the defendant No.1. since both documents are executed on the same day in respect of same property, both documents have to be treated as contemporaneous documents. And if they are read together then it clearly shows that GPA dated 29/06/1982 is GPA coupled with interest. Then Section 202 of Contract Act has be pressed into service.
Sec.202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject matter. Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which form the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. 19
O.S.NO.3257/2012 Illustrations
(a) A gives authority to B to sell A's land and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death.
And further I would like to rely upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka dated 14/7/2020 in MFA No.22850/2013, in the case of MEENAXI & others V/s PANDURANG BHIMRAO LAXMESHWAR since dead by LR's, wherein the said decision at Para No.20, " As per the said provision, if the agency is coupled with interest, it is irrevocable. From the reading of the illustration (a) it is clear, that if the authority is coupled with interest, principal cannot revoke the authority nor it can be terminated by insanity or death. Therefore even after the death of 20 O.S.NO.3257/2012 the principal, the agent can act on the basis of the said authority. Therefore the general power of attorney executed in favor of P.B.Laxmeshwar dated 27/12/1984 as per EX.P.23 read along with EX.P.22 is irrevocable power of attorney as it is coupled with interest"
And another decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.F.A.No.358/2000, in Shri Ramesh Chand V/s Suresh chand and another, dated 9/4/2012, wherein at para 4 of the judgment it has been held that, " There is also one other aspect which needs to be clarified before proceedings ahead and which is whether a power of attorney given for consideration would stand extinguished on the death of the executant of the power of attorney. The answer to this contained in illustration given to Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872, and the said provision with its illustration reads as under;-.... 21
O.S.NO.3257/2012 Section.202.....and ..... illustrations....... The object of giving validity to a power of attorney given for consideration even after death of the executants is to ensure that entitlement under such power of attorney remains because the same is not a regular or a routine power of attorney but the same had elements of commercial transaction which cannot be allowed to frustrated on account of death of executant of the power of attorney".
As per Sec. 202 of Contract, it very much clear that the GPA coupled with interest will be in operation even after the death of the principal.
And another important decision is decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.F.A.648/2006, dated 18/5/2012, in the case of Hardip Kaur Vs Kailash and another. In the said decision the 22 O.S.NO.3257/2012 Hon'ble High Court has in its para No.25, 26 & 27 has held as under;
25. False claims and defenses are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate.
Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.
26. It is the duty of the courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in 23 O.S.NO.3257/2012 prolonging the litigation, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of filing false cases.
27. Conclusion: On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned judgment. The plaintiff has misused the process of law by raising a false claim. The plaintiff has no respect for truth and has made false statements on oath. The plaintiff has shamelessly resorted to falsehood and has attempted to pollute the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. This 24 O.S.NO.3257/2012 case is squarely covered by the above mentioned judgments and warrants prosecution as well as imposition of penal costs on the plaintiff. However, considering that the courts are already overburdened, directing prosecution of the plaintiff would further burden the system. This appeal is consequently dismissed with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- on the appellant. The cost be paid by the appellant to the respondents within four weeks".
From reading the above authorities read with Section 202 of Contract, it very much clear that the GPA coupled with interest will be in operation even after the death of the principal. Herein in this case, the suit property has been sold by the GPA holder i.e., defendant No.1 by exercising the power granted to him under the Ex.D.14, in which it is specifically stated that agent is authorized to sell the property covered under it. And stamp duty issue 25 O.S.NO.3257/2012 has been corrected by paying the duty on penalty. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that title is validly transferred to the defendants No.2 & 3 through the procedure known to the law and when the title not vested with the plaintiff, it can be safely held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the Issue No.1 & 2, hence the same are answered in negative.
22. Issue No.3: The O.S.No.17002/2005 is the dispute between defendants No.2, 3 & 1 in this regard they have approached the the court for the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and after full fledged trial court has declared the defendant No.2 & 3 are the owners of the suit property and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.357/2012 dated 09-04-2012. The rights of the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 & 3 were not in issue in the said suit hence the same is binding only against the defendant No.1 and not against the plaintiff. Hence the same is answered in partly affirmative.
26
O.S.NO.3257/2012
23. Issue No.4: In view of the finding given on issue No.1 & 2 the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.
24. Additional Issues 1 to 6: These additional issues No.1 to 6 have been framed casting the burden upon the defendant No.1. But during the pendency of the suit the defendant No.1 died during December 2016 and his legal heirs i.e., defendant No.1(a) to (e) were brought on record but all of them are remained absent despite service of the summons and notice and they were placed exparte. When there is no oral evidence in support of the contention urged by the defendant No.1, there is no other go but to hold Additional issue No.1 to 6 are not proved.
25. During the course of argument the L/c for plaintiff has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 8 SCC 561 in Siddalingamma and Another Vs Mamtha Shenoy. It is in respect of rent control and eviction and amendment of the pleadings. The said decision is not applicable to the case on hand on merits.
And another decision reported in AIR 2007 Rajasthan 27 O.S.NO.3257/2012 166 in Prahlad and Others Vs Laddevi And Another. Power of attorney -is operative and effective only during the lifetime of donor -donor and donee stand in relationship of master and agent -since actions done by donee are deemed to be actions done on part of donor, naturally such power of attorney cannot be operative or be effective after demise of the donor -sale deed signed by holder of power of attorney after demise of donee -illegal
-cancellation of sale deed proper. But the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand, because in the present case GPA is irrevocable and coupled with interest. In view of the latest decision of the Hon'ble High Court in MRA No.22850/2013 dated 14-07-2020 at para No.20 " as per the said provision, if the agency is coupled with interest, it is irrevocable. From the reading of the illustration (a), it is clear, that if the authority is coupled with interest, principal cannot revoke the authority nor it can be terminated by insanity or death. Therefore, even after the death of the principal, the agent can act on the basis of the said authority. Therefore, the General power of attorney 28 O.S.NO.3257/2012 executed in favour of P.B.Laxmeshwar dated 27-12-1984 as per Ex.P.23 read along with Ex.P.22 is irrevocable power of attorney as it is coupled with interest. In view of this decision by Honb'le High Court of Karnataka, the decision cited by the plaintiff is not applicable to the case on hand.
And another decision reported in ILR 1993 Karnataka 2306, It is in my opinion is against to the plaintiff. Because by considering of Section 202 of contract act at para No.5 in the said decision it is clearly held that "An authority coupled with interest is not determined by death, insanity or bankruptcy of the principal where the agent made advances to the principal and is authorized to sell at best price and recoup advances made by him, the agency is one coupled with interest and is irrevocable. Where all the rights and liabilities under a contract were made over by the power of attorney, such power is an agency coupled with interest". The said decision goes against the plaintiff.
26. L/c for defendant has relied upon the decision reported in (2015) 5 SCC cases 588. It is in respect of Transfer of Property Act, Section 54 & 5, 59, 107, 118, 123 29 O.S.NO.3257/2012 & 9. Where in the Suraj Lamps case has been considered.
27. Issue No.5:- In view of my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2021.) (SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property western portion of the Old Khatha No.325, New Khatha No.325/4, property No. 218, situated at: Subbayanapalya, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore. This property comes under the jurisdiction of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 50 feet, North to South 30 feet in all total measuring 1500 sq.ft and bounded on the East By: Water Channel 30 O.S.NO.3257/2012 West By: 20 feet road North By: Private Property South By: Private Property ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a)Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Akkayamma
(b)Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Karthikeyan
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a)Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of the partition deed dated 11-10-1980 Ex.P.2: Death certificate of Krishnappa dated 17-09-1999 Ex.P.3: Certified copy of the GPA dated 29-06-1982 Ex.P.4: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 06-10-2004
(b) Defendant's side :
Ex.D.1: Original sale deed dated 06-10-2004 Ex.D.2: Khatha certificate 31 O.S.NO.3257/2012 Ex.D.3: Khatha registration Ex.D.4: Tax paid receipts Ex.D.6 & EC's 8:
Ex.D.9: Receipt
Ex.D.10: Official memorandum dated
06-05-2005 issued by Bescom
Ex.D.11: Original release deed dated
01-10-2015
Ex.D.12: Original confirmation deed dated
01-10-2015
Ex.D.13 Agreement of sale dated 29-06-1982
Ex.D.14 Original registered GPA dated
29-06-1982
Ex.D.15 Demand register extract
Ex.D.16 Certified copy of Judgment and
Decree in passed in
O.S.No.17002/2005
Ex.D.17 Certified copy of the Judgment
passed in RFA No. 357/2012
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.