Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. In view of specific stand by the defendant even in the reply notice which is produced at Ex.D.15 and also in the written statement that, "plaintiff is not the son of O.S.NO.156/2010 the said Muniyamma", plaintiff has to prove that he is the son of Muniyamma but the plaintiff has not produced the single document before the court to substantiate that he is the son of Muniyamma, apart from that, the original plaintiff has not at all stepped into the witness box. One Mr.Nataraj plaintiff No.1(b) was examined as the P.W.1, on the basis of the GPA produced at Ex.P.1. The suit filed by the original plaintiff Sri.Venkataswamy and during the course of proceedings he died on 16-08-2019 and the GPA was executed in favour of the plaintiff No.1(b) on 13-03-2013, but the said GPA is not a valid document for the simple reason that, the said GPA is not at all executed/authenticated as required under law because it is not at all executed before the notary or any other competent officer whom law authorized to recognize the execution/authentication. And on the basis of the said Ex.P.1 plaintiff No.1(b) was examined during the lifetime of original plaintiff on 24-07-2013 and his evidence in my humble opinion is not a valid oral evidence because Ex.P1 is a invalid document and he has not given his oral evidence O.S.NO.156/2010 as a legal heir of original plaintiff after the death of Venkataswamy, but he has adduced the evidence on the basis Ex.P.1- GPA during the lifetime of original plaintiff on 24-07-2013. When the Ex.P.1 is not validly executed before the notary the said document will not authorize the power of attorney holder to depose before the court and in view of this fact his oral evidence cannot be considered. That apart as already discussed even original plaintiff or his legal heirs has not at all produced the connecting document to establish that, original plaintiff Venkataswamy is the son of deceased Muniyamma. In this regard the contention taken in the written statement and reply notice is very much important because in the written statement at para 6 it is categorically contended that, "It is not admitted that the plaintiff is the son of late Muniyamma" and it is also stated in the reply notice at Ex.D.15 at para No.2 "it is not admitted that he is the son of Muniyamma". So in view of this definite contention the plaintiff should have taken little pain in producing the connecting document before the court to establish that, Venkataswamy is the son O.S.NO.156/2010 of deceased Muniyamma. The P.W.1 during the course of cross examination has stated that, "Venkataswamy is the only son of Muniyamma. I have the G-Tree of Muniyamma". But despite this, he has not produced a single piece of paper to establish that Venkataswamy is the son of Muniyamma.

O.S.NO.156/2010

40. On the other hand the defendant has specifically contended that she is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by Nanjunde Gowda as GPA holder of Smt.Muniyamma, has produced certified copy of GPA dated 01-08-1985. The said GPA is executed by Smt.Muniyamma in favour of Nanjundegowda in respect of site No.43 & 44 and on the same day Ex.D.20 affidavit is also executed before the notary in respect of site No.43 & 44.

41. On careful examination of the Ex.D.11 and 20, which are certified copies of GPA and Affidavit, it is clear these two documents are the basis for the very dispute.

42. Ex.D.11 is the GPA dated 1/8/1985 executed by Smt Muniyamma, the signature (LTM) is not disputed by the plaintiff, but it is contended that the said LTM was obtained to the blank paper by the Sathyanarayana and Nanjundegowda and others on the guise of preventing the Sy No.69/1 of Banasawadi village from acquisition. Ex.D.11 GPA is notarized as required under the law, when the same is notarized then the court has to draw the presumption as O.S.NO.156/2010 required under section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act. Which reads as under;-

44. Now let me consider the content of the said GPA, the same is executed by the Smt Muniyamma on 1/8/1985 in favour of M.B.Nanjundegowda, authorizing him to deal O.S.NO.156/2010 with the site No.43 and 44 formed in Sy No.69/1 of Banasawadi village, and it is also mentioned in the said GPA, that she will never cancel the said GPA. From perusal of the content of the said GPA, it is very much clear that in the Sy No.69/1 sites were formed during 1985 itself, and out of the said sites site No.43 and 44 were given to M.B.Nanjundegowda to deal with it.