Karnataka High Court
Ranadeep Kanchan vs Kishore Devadiga on 21 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33115
RFA No. 2763 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2763 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
RANADEEP KANCHAN
S/O. B. SADHU KARKERA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT 3-46, PAVITHRA SADANA
GANDHINAGARA, KUNJITHABAIL P.O.
MANGALORE-570 015.
D.K. DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KISHORE DEVADIGA
S/O. VISHWANATHA DEVADIGA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
by NAGARAJA B
M RESIDING AT SEVASADAN
Location: HIGH CHALL NO. 01, ROOM NO. 1
COURT OF
KARNATAKA LAKE ROAD, BANDHUP,
MUMBAI-110 001.
INTER-ALIA HAVING ADDRESS AT
1ST BLOCK, SITE NO. 21
KATIPALLA VILLAGE AND POST
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.
2. MR. VISHWANATHA DEVADIGA
S/O LATE GOPALA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33115
RFA No. 2763 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. MRS. PREMA A RAO
D/O. MR. VISHWANATH DEVADIGA
W/O. MR. ANAND K RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 9/170
II FLOOR, MULUND COLONY
JAI SHASTRY NAGAR
MULUND, MUMBAI-82.
4. MR. GANGADHAR ULLAL
S/O. CHANDRAPPA BELCHADA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALLAPU PADDALA HOUSE
PERMANUR VILLAGE AND POST
MANGALORE TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.
5. MRS. SHANTHA RAO
W/O. SADASHIVA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT AKSHATA NIVAS
NEAR MARIGUDI TEMPLE
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE
D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 04.07.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS
DEFERRED FOR THE TIME BEING)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2020
PASSED IN OS.NO.47/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, MANGALURU
D.K, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33115
RFA No. 2763 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by the subsequent transferee who has questioned the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.47/2011, wherein the trial Court has decreed the suit thereby declaring the deed of cancellation dated 18.12.2007 executed by defendant No.1 and consequent sale deeds dated 28.06.2008 and 20.11.2010 entered into between defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 as void documents. These sale deeds are accordingly set aside. The present appellant who is a pendente lite purchaser has questioned the decree granted in O.S.No.47/2011.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff, who is the son of Defendant No.1, has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mangaluru Taluk, is fraudulent, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR null, and void. Consequentially, the plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the sale deed dated 28.06.2008 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3, and the subsequent sale deed dated 20.11.2010 executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.4, are likewise void documents.
4. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property through his father under the registered settlement deed dated 08.05.2006. According to the plaintiff, his father had transferred the property in accordance with the terms of the said settlement deed. The plaintiff further acknowledges that his father had originally acquired the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.1997. Following the execution of the settlement deed, the plaintiff asserts that he became the absolute owner and was in exclusive possession of the property.
5. The plaintiff contends that both he and Defendant No.1 were residing in Mumbai and that it was -5- NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR only in the last week of November 2010, while attempting to obtain a housing loan to construct a residential building, that he discovered, through the computerized RTC of the suit property, that the property stood in the name of Defendant No.3 pursuant to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru on 28.06.2010. This discovery prompted the plaintiff to obtain certified copies of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the appeal memo filed by Defendant No.3, and the written arguments submitted by Defendant No.1 in mutation proceedings, in which he was arrayed as a respondent.
6. Referring to these documents, the plaintiff specifically alleged that his father, acting on the strength of the cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007 which purportedly cancelled the settlement deed executed on 08.05.2006 based on a fraudulent GPA conveyed the property in favour of Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3, in turn, sold the property to Defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.2010. Accordingly, the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiff sought a declaration that these documents were null and void.
7. Defendant No.1, the father of the plaintiff, appeared upon receiving summons and filed a written statement denying all averments in the plaint. He specifically contended that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed a power of attorney (GPA) on 18.02.2008 before a Notary Public and Advocate T.T. Shahare, as the buyer required the plaintiff's participation to complete the transaction. Defendant No.1 further alleged that strained relations with the plaintiff led him to issue a legal notice on 17.03.2008, after which the plaintiff requested permission to occupy the Mumbai residence. He asserted that the plaintiff accompanied him while executing the GPA, and based on the GPA, Defendant No.1 sold the property, along with the plaintiff's consent, to Defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2008. Defendant No.1 emphasized that the plaintiff was fully aware of both the GPA and the sale deed, and that the original GPA was -7- NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR handed over to Defendant No.3 at the time of the sale. Defendant No.1 further claimed that the plaintiff was neither in possession nor in occupation of the property and sought dismissal of the suit, alleging that the plaintiff was attempting to coerce him in his old age.
8. Defendant No.3, the purchaser, also denied all allegations, asserting that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed the GPA to facilitate the transaction, and therefore, the plaintiff was fully aware of both the GPA and the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 sought dismissal of the suit.
9. Defendant No.4, who purchased the property from Defendant No.3, filed a separate written statement claiming to be a bona fide purchaser in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and likewise sought dismissal of the suit.
10. During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced 22 documents marked as Exs.P-1 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR to P-22. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1, and Defendant No.4 was examined as DW-2. The defendants relied on three documents, marked as Exs.D-1 to D-3. The signatures of the plaintiff on Exs.P-10 and D-1 were sent for expert opinion on fingerprints.
11. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial court answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by virtue of the settlement deed dated 08.05.2006. Issue No.2 was answered in the negative, recording that Defendant No.1 failed to prove that the settlement deed was obtained through coercion. Issue No.3 was answered in the affirmative, with the court holding that the GPA dated 18.02.2008 was a fabricated document. Consequently, Issue Nos.4 and 5 were answered in the affirmative, declaring the sale deeds executed in favour of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 as void. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the subsequent transferee and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Both the counsels have argued extensively. This Court has meticulously examined the pleadings of the parties, the FSL report and the oral and documentary evidence led in by the respective parties. The following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that GPA dated 18.02.2008 is a concocted and fabricated document suffers from perversity?
2) Whether the finding recorded on issue No.3 declaring the GPA as a concocted document suffers from perversity in absence of challenge to the GPA in the suit when admittedly plaintiff has not questioned the GPA dated 18.02.2008 obtained by defendant No.1 from plaintiff?
3) What order?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR Finding on Point Nos.1 and 2:
13. On a closer and detailed examination of the documents on record, as well as the stand taken by Defendant No.1, it is evident that the plaintiff admits that the suit schedule property was the self-acquired property of his father, Defendant No.1. The plaintiff, however, asserts that his father, Defendant No.1, conveyed the suit schedule property in his favour through a registered settlement deed dated 08.05.2006.
14. While Defendant No.1 has contended that the settlement deed dated 08.05.2006 (marked as Ex.P-22) was obtained under coercion, the record does not contain any material to substantiate this allegation. It is well- settled that once immovable property is conveyed by a father in favour of his son under a registered settlement deed, the father cannot unilaterally nullify such a conveyance. If Defendant No.1 wished to challenge the validity of the settlement deed, the proper recourse available to him was to initiate proceedings in accordance
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR with the law, seeking to have the settlement deed set aside by competent judicial authority. The mere execution of a subsequent cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007, purportedly rescinding the settlement deed, cannot override or nullify the rights conferred under the earlier registered deed.
15. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that the cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007 is a null and void document. This legal position is consistent with numerous judgments rendered by this Court, which have repeatedly held that once immovable property is conveyed under a registered document, no subsequent registered document can unilaterally nullify or defeat the original conveyance. Such unilateral action is impermissible under law and cannot confer any legal validity on a subsequent cancellation or similar instrument.
16. Accordingly, the core issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the plaintiff,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR having acquired the property under the registered settlement deed dated 08.05.2006, has retained his right, title, and interest in the suit schedule property. Further, this Court is required to examine whether the Trial Court committed any error in holding that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 18.02.2008 was a concocted and fabricated document, particularly in light of the fact that there was no specific challenge to the GPA in the plaint and notwithstanding the expert opinion on fingerprints, which is part of the record.
17. Before this Court proceeds to consider these matters in detail, it is appropriate to extract the prayer portion of the plaint filed in O.S.No.47/2011, as it contains the substantive relief sought by the plaintiff. For ready reference, Prayer VI(a), which constitutes the principal relief claimed in the plaint, is reproduced as follows:
"VI(a) For declaration that the deed of cancellation dated 18-12-2007, registered ad Document No.MGT-1-06625/2007-08 Book No.1, C.D.No.MGTD67 in the Office of Sub-Registrar of Mangalore Taluk, is a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR fraudulent, null and void document and consequently to adjudge the sale deed dated 28-6-2008 registered as Document No.MGT-1-03926/2008-09 Book No.1, C.D. No.MGTD80 registered 25-9-2008 in the Office of Sub- Registrar of Mangalore Taluk and the sale deed dated 20-11-2010 registered as Document No.MGT-1- 05315/2010-2011, Book No.1, C.D.No.MGTD127, in the Office of Sub-Registrar of Mangalore Taluk, as void documents and cancel/set aside those documents and also to send a copy of the decree of above said effect to the Sub-Registrar of Mangalore Taluk, to make necessary entry in that regard in all the registers and books maintained by him and also Tahashildar Mangalore, to make necessary change of mutation in the R.T.C. in the name of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property."
18. On perusal of the prayer sought in the plaint, it is apparent that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father, Defendant No.1, dated 18.02.2008, has not been specifically challenged, nor has any declaration been sought with respect to its validity. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has made a tenuous attempt to dispute this critical document, which formed the basis for Defendant No.1 to convey the suit
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR property in favour of Defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2008. The relevant averments disputing the GPA are found in Paragraph 8 of the plaint. For ease of reference, Paragraph 8 of the plaint is extracted below, which reads as follows:
"8. The plaintiff has also obtained the certified copy of the fraudulent sale deed dated 28-6-2008, brought about by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant in collusion with each other in favour of the 3rd defendant. Surprisingly and shockingly the plaintiff is stated to have been represented by the 1st defendant as his General Power of Attorney as per alleged General Power of Attorney dated 18-2-2008 to sign the said sale deed as a consenting witness also. The 2nd defendant has signed as another consenting witness to the said fraudulent sale deed."
19. The cause of action to file the suit in 2011 is also relevant and therefore para 9 and para IV are extracted which reads as under:
"9. This being the facts, the plaintiff has again obtained one more R.T.C of the plaint schedule property. Again shockingly the plaintiff came to know that R.T.C was mutated in the name of the 4th defendant
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR on the basis of sale of the property. In pursuance thereof, in order to ascertain the details of the sale transaction the plaintiff has obtained encumbrance certificate and on getting the said document he obtained the sale deed referred therein dated 20-11-2010 and that is how the plaintiff further learnt that the 3rd and 4th defendant in collusion with each other, have fraudulently brought about at another sale deed dated 20-11-2010, infavour of the 4th defendant in favour of the plaint schedule property. In the said sale deed the plaint schedule property shown to have been sold for consideration of Rs.1,61,000/- by the 3rd defendant infavour of 4th defendant. The consideration shown in the sale deed dated 28-6-2008, infavour of 3rd defendant and the sale deed dated 20-11-2010, infavour of 4th defendant is far less than the actual market price of the property. The deed of cancellation dated 18-12- 2007 and subsequent sale deeds dated 28-6-2008 and 20-11-2010 all are sham and void documents. The deed of cancellation since being a void document is subsequent sale deeds referred above are also fake and void documents and do not create any right, title and interest in the name of 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. The mutations done on the basis of void documents are also void documents and have no value in eye of law."
"IV. The cause of action for the suit has arisen on 3-3-2011 when the plaintiff came to know about the fraudulent and void deed of cancellation dated 18-12-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR 2007, the fraudulent and void sale deed dated 28-6- 2008, 4-3-2011 about the Revenue Appeal and Order therein and on 28-3-2011 about the fraudulent and void sale transaction dated 20-11-2010 between 3rd and 4th defendants on obtaining certified copies of those documents on above referred respective dates and subsequently in the 1st week of April when the plaintiff came to know about the plan of the defendants to sell the plaint schedule property at Mangalore within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
20. On a careful reading of Paragraph 8 of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff has seriously disputed the General Power of Attorney (GPA) allegedly executed in his favour by his father, Defendant No.1, on 18.02.2008. Having raised such a dispute, the plaintiff was required to specifically challenge the validity of the GPA, as it is the document on the basis of which Defendant No.1 purportedly entered into further transactions, including the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.3. However, the plaint does not contain any prayer or substantive relief directly questioning the validity of the GPA.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR
21. In view of the relief sought in the plaint, it becomes imperative to examine whether the signatures appearing on the GPA genuinely belong to the plaintiff. This issue is crucial, as the authenticity of the GPA directly impacts the validity of the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No.3. To resolve this matter, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the report submitted by the forensic expert. The portions of the report relevant to this Court's consideration are Paragraphs 2 to 5, which are extracted herein for ready reference, as they contain the expert's analysis and findings regarding the authenticity of the signatures on the GPA.
"2. On examination of questioned signature marked as ExD1A1 to ExD1A10 on one hand and the standard signatures marked as S1 to S36 on the various similarities are observed in their minute and inconspicuous details of individual signatures habits, such as manner of execution of initial character 'K' in two operations with the commencement of its initial body vertical stroke in downward movement with its nature of extent, execution of its buccal part in separate
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR operation with the commencement of its initial stroke with ticked movement in downward direction and in turn formation of its terminal part of the character in continuation of its previous part of the character resultant of twist in the form of relative size eyelet, extent of its terminal stroke and combination with following character 'i', higher skill of writing habits, location of character in respect to the ideal baseline of signature etc., as observed in questioned signatures marked as ExD1A1 to ExD1A10 is similarly observed in standard signature marked as S1 to S36.
3. Other similarities are also observed in the following part of signature like execution of terminal character 's' and its peculiar shape and so also manner of combination with previous character, relative size of its body parts, extent of its terminal finish almost encircling the previous execution in its clockwise movement and finally towards right hand side resulting into underscoring for the oval signature, alignment of whole signature in respect to the ideal baseline of writers writing habits, higher skill of writing habits etc., as observed in questioned signatures marked as ExD1A1 to ExD1A10 are similarly observed in standard signatures marked as S1 to S36.
4. Similarities are also observed in the general writing characteristics like movement, skill, speed, spacing, slant, alignment, relative size, skill of writing
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR habits and proportion of characters of the questioned and standard signatures.
5. In short, cumulative consideration of the aforesaid similarities are significant and sufficient questioned and the standard signatures in both the general and individual writing characteristic constitutes the basis for my opinion that the questioned signature marked as ExD1A1 to ExD1A10 and the standard signatures marked as S1 to S36 were written by one and the same person."
(Emphasis Supplied by me)
22. On a careful reading of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, it is manifestly evident that the expert, upon comparing the signatures of the plaintiff on Ex.P-10 with those on the disputed GPA marked as Ex.D- 1, has opined that the signatures labelled S1 to S36 were executed by one and the same person. This unequivocal finding establishes that the signatures on the GPA are genuine and belong to the plaintiff.
23. A perusal of the order sheet further reveals that the plaintiff had expressly consented to the tendering of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR this expert report. It is also noteworthy that the referral of the signatures to the fingerprint expert was made at the instance of the plaintiff himself, thereby reinforcing the authenticity of the expert evidence.
24. An examination of the oral evidence adduced during the trial indicates that the plaintiff has completely ignored this crucial aspect of the case. No specific questions were put to Defendant No.1 during cross- examination regarding the GPA, nor was there any meaningful challenge to the execution of the GPA. Even in his examination-in-chief, the plaintiff's allegations remain bald and general, without confronting the specific document marked as Ex.D-1.
25. Upon a meticulous and independent appraisal of this crucial evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff, although an absolute owner by virtue of the settlement deed, has lost the right and title over the suit schedule property pursuant to the GPA executed in favour of his father,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR Defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit schedule property was lawfully conveyed by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2008, executed on the basis of valid authorization provided by the GPA.
26. It is also apparent that the cause of action invoked by the plaintiff is, in substance, illusory. While the plaintiff asserts that he became aware of the transaction only in the last week of November 2010, the records particularly the appeal memo, written arguments, and RTCs were obtained only in 2021. Had the plaintiff truly come into possession of these documents in November 2010, he ought to have produced them contemporaneously at the time of filing the suit to substantiate his claims.
27. The Trial Court has fundamentally misdirected itself in examining the validity of the GPA. There was no specific challenge raised to the GPA dated 18.02.2008
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR (Ex.D-1) in the plaint, and no declaration was sought questioning its authenticity. The fingerprint expert's report lends full credibility to the genuineness of the GPA. The Trial Court appears to have doubted this document solely on the basis that Defendant No.1, during the course of trial, did not provide detailed explanations regarding the transactions. Any alleged laches or non-participation on the part of Defendant No.1 cannot be allowed to benefit the plaintiff. The initial burden of questioning and disproving the GPA rested squarely upon the plaintiff, and this burden has not been discharged.
28. The plaint and the prayers therein clearly indicate that the plaintiff has never questioned the GPA, despite the property having been lawfully conveyed and the sale transaction completed. Merely because Defendant No.1 may have adopted a passive stance during the trial, or may have been perceived to favour his son, the validity of the transactions effected through a duly executed and authenticated GPA cannot be nullified. The approach
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR adopted by the Trial Court, which effectively cast the burden on the purchasers, is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.3 are perverse and cannot stand. In consequence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, affirming the law that unchallenged documents retain full legal sanctity and cannot be disregarded.
29. Conclusions:
(i) The plaintiff has established that the suit schedule property, though the self-acquired property of Defendant No.1, was validly conveyed to him by way of a registered settlement deed dated 08.05.2006. The unilateral cancellation of such a registered deed by execution of a subsequent cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007 is impermissible in law. The Trial Court was correct in holding that the cancellation deed is a void document.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR
(ii) The plaintiff, despite disputing the GPA in pleadings, failed to specifically challenge the document in the plaint or seek a declaration questioning its validity. In absence of a proper challenge, the Court cannot examine or invalidate the GPA. The forensic expert's report, obtained at the instance of the plaintiff, conclusively opined that the disputed signatures were indeed those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff consented to the expert's report, and no serious cross-examination of Defendant No.1 was undertaken on this aspect. The Trial Court erred in ignoring this conclusive evidence and in branding the GPA as fabricated.
(iii) Once the GPA is accepted as valid and binding, the sale transaction executed by Defendant No.1 on behalf of the plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.3 stands as a lawful conveyance. Defendant No.3, having purchased the property under a registered sale deed supported by valuable consideration, acquired valid title.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR
(iv) Defendant No.4, being a bona fide purchaser for value from Defendant No.3, has acquired valid title and possession. The burden wrongly cast by the Trial Court on the purchasers is legally unsustainable, particularly when the plaintiff himself failed to discharge his initial burden of challenging the GPA.
(v) The plaintiff's assertion that he discovered the impugned transactions in November 2010 is belied by the record, as the supporting documents were admittedly obtained much later. The cause of action is therefore illusory and lacks bona fides. The Trial Court failed to properly appreciate this aspect.
(vi) The Trial Court's findings on Issue No.3 are vitiated by perversity. Instead of confining itself to the prayers in the plaint and appreciating the binding expert opinion, the Trial Court erroneously cast the burden on the purchasers and proceeded to doubt the GPA on extraneous considerations. Such an approach is contrary to settled law
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR that unless a document is specifically challenged, its validity cannot be adjudicated.
Finding on Point No.3:
30. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 11.03.2020 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.47/2011 is set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed;
(iii) The finding of the Trial Court
declaring the GPA dated 18.02.2008 as
fabricated is unsustainable and stands
reversed;
(iv) Consequently, the sale deed dated 28.06.2008 in favour of Defendant No.3 and the subsequent sale deed dated 20.11.2010 in favour of Defendant No.4 are held to be valid and binding;
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33115 RFA No. 2763 of 2024 HC-KAR
(v) The Trial Court's decree declaring the said sale deeds as void is set aside.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2