Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The plaintiff has filed the above numbered suit for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and alternative relief of specific performance of the contract and consequential relief of permanent injunction along with the cost of the suit. Per contra, the defendant No.4 has set up counter claim for the relief of declaration and possession.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

That, the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house property bearing No.1000/18, situated at Service Road, RPC Layout, Bengaluru. The suit schedule property was originally belonging to defendant No.1 who has executed Registered GPA dated: 17.7.1996 in favour of defendant No.2 with possession of the suit schedule property and original documents. Accordingly defendant No.2 entered into Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff on 19.12.1996 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.81 Lakhs and on the same day, he received an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as advance sale consideration amount. Further defendant No.2 has received an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs on 13.1.1997 and also Rs.21 Lakhs on 13.2.1997 by way of cash and made necessary endorsement in the Agreement. Further on 28.3.1997 defendant No.2 has received balance sale consideration of Rs.40 Lakhs by way of Cheques and on O.S. No.5736/2010 2.7.1997 put the plaintiff in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has paid entire sale consideration amount and GPA dated: 2.7.1997 is a registered document. Now the plaintiff is residing in the suit schedule property as an absolute owner from 2.7.1997, defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 did not exercise any ownership right over the suit schedule property, as such, the plaintiff is continuously in the possession and settled possession of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years and thereby perfected her title by way of adverse possession also.

Defendants-3 and 4 are not bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property for value. Defendant No.1 also filed a suit in P.Misc.No.476/2002 against defendant No.2 by admitting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as well as execution of GPA in favour of defendant No.2, as such, the title of the plaintiff set up by way of adverse possession is continuous from the year 1997 till this day. The claim of defendant No.1 that she has revoked GPA executed in favour of O.S. No.5736/2010 defendant No.2 is false, baseless and meaningless as the same is coupled with interest is irrevocable. Moreover revocation of GPA has not been communicated by defendant No.1/plaintiff in P.Misc., either to defendant No.2 or the present plaintiff. The cause of action arose on 19.12.1996 on the date of the agreement, on 2.7.1997 on the date of GPA executed in favour of the plaintiff and putting her in possession of the suit schedule property and thereafter continuously till when the plaintiff has entered possession and on 5.3.2010 when she set up title by way of adverse possession. On these grounds, the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit.

19.12.1996 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is created and it is not binding on defendant No.1 who is the owner of the suit schedule property. The alleged Registered GPA dated: 2.7.1997 said to have been executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff is not valid, as defendant No.2 O.S. No.5736/2010 being the power of attorney holder cannot delegate his power to the plaintiff, as such, no right, title or interest can flow on to the plaintiff through the said alleged GPA dated: 2.7.1997.

7. Further it is contended that, the registered GPA dated:

17.7.1996 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 has been duly revoked and cancelled by defendant No.1 way back in the year 2001 itself by executing registered Revocation Deed dated: 9.8.2001 and also the said fact has been communicated to defendant No.2, as such GPA dated:
17.7.1996 does not survive and does not derive any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property as the said GPA has become unenforceable document. The claim of the plaintiff that she has perfected her title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession is also misconceived and not permissible in law, as the plaintiff is an agent in respect of the suit schedule property under the GPA dated: 2.7.1997. The present suit filed by the plaintiff after lapse of 13 years from the date of alleged Agreement and GPA is barred by time. Defendant No.1 being the absolute owner is not a party either to the Agreement of Sale dated: 19.12.1996 or to the Registered GPA dated: 2.7.1997, as such, the said documents are created without the knowledge and consent of defendant No.1 are not binding on defendant No.1. The plaintiff has somehow entered into possession of the suit schedule property in-collusion with defendant No.2 in an unlawful manner. Defendant No.4 was told that the husband of the plaintiff had entered into the suit schedule property as a tenant under defendant No.2 and thereafter fictitious O.S. No.5736/2010 documents have been created by the plaintiff and her husband in collusion with defendant No.2 with an intention to grab the suit schedule property and thereby defendant No.2 has committed breach of trust and mis-used the power granted by defendant No.1 under the GPA dated: 17.7.1996. The present suit is filed on the basis of in-consistent and contradicting pleadings. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The above suit is filed with a malafide intention to make unjust gain at the cost of defendant No.4, who is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has no right to remain in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 Trust is the absolute owner having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. All the title deeds and revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property are standing in the name of defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 is paying tax to the concerned authorities.