Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.

13. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants praying to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by way of succession after the death of Sri.Chinnappa and to declare that the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also prayed to cancel the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of his son 2 nd defendant as the same is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also prayed to issue mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to demolish the building put up by the defendants and to direct the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed to pass an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Prior to proceed further it is necessary to note some undisputed facts in this suit. So far as the relationship between the parties is concerned there is no dispute. 1 St plaintiff Lakshmma and deceased Chinnappa are the parents of plaintiff No. 2 and 3. The said late Chinnappa is the brother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. It is undisputed fact that Chinnappa died on 30.6.2007. It is undisputed fact that Yerappa who is the father of defendant No. 1 and late Chinnappa has purchased the suit schedule property bearing No. 34 (K.K.No.34) under registered sale deed dated 27.7.1953. It is not in dispute that during the life time of Chinnappa he along with his wife the 1 st plaintiff and his children 2 nd and 3 rd plaintiffs have executed an unregistered General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 in respect of suit schedule property in favour of 1 st defendant Y.Hanumanthappa. Keeping in mind these undisputed facts now it is necessary to narrate the contention taken by the plaintiffs and defendants of this suit. It is the contention of the plaintiffs is that the 1 st plaintiff's husband and 2 nd and 3 rd plaintiff's father Chinnappa has acquired the suit schedule property by way of partition. It is the contention of the plaintiffs is that as on the date of exetuion of General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1 st defendant the 2 nd and 3 rd plaintiffs were still minors, hence the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 is void document so as to plaintiff No. 2 and 3 is concerned. It is further contention of the plaintiffs is that Chinnappa expired on 30.6.2007. Hence on the death of Chinnappa General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 also dies / vanishes. It is further contention of the plaintiffs is that they have cancelled / revoked General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 on 3.4.2013 and they have also sent legal notice dated 3.4.2013 to the 1 st defendant stating that the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 has cancelled / revoked. The said notice was duly served on the 1 st defendant but the 1 st defendant has sent untenable reply through his advocate on 10.4.2013. It is the contention of the plaintiffs is that even after the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 the 1 st defendant has executed registered sale deed dated 16.4.2003 in favour of his son 2 nd defendant. Hence this sale deed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence on these grounds the plaintiffs sought for declaration of their ownership over the suit schedule property and to declare that the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 to be declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and to declare that the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

16. In this suit on the side of the plaintiffs plaintiff No. 2 examined himself as PW1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 are marked through him. The documents Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 are marked during the course of cross-examination of DW1. PW1 in his examination-in-chief affidavit has reiterated the plaint averments. Since examination-in-chief of PW1 is the replica of the plaint averments it need not be reproduced once again except mentioning the gist of the same. PW1 has deposed that his father Chinnappa has acquired the suit schedule property by way of partition. He states that the suit schedule property was originally purchased by his grand father Yerappa under registered sale deed dated 27.7.1953. He has deposed that his father Chinnappa and they have executed an unregistered General Power of Attorney in favour of 1 st defendant on 11.11.1998. During the said period he and the 3 rd plaintiff were still minors. In the recitals of GPA the age is clearly stated. He has deposed that his father Sri.Chinnappa died on 30.6.2007. He states that after the death of his father the GPA automatically ceases. He has deposed that they have requested the 1 st defendant to return the GPA as executor is no more. But the 1 st defendant refused to handover the same. Thereafter on 3.4.2013 the plaintiffs have cancelled / revoked the said GPA dated 11.11.1998. He states that thereafter they have sent legal notice on 3.4.2013 to the 1 st defendant through ordinary post and through RPAD. The said notice was duly served upon the 1 st defendant. Thereafter the 1 st defendant had sent untenable reply dated 10.4.2013 through his advocate. He has deposed that after cancellation of the GPA, in order to deprive the plaintiffs the 1 st defendant has executed registered sale deed dated 16.4.2013 in favour of his son 2 nd defendant. He states that the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The document Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 are marked through PW1. Ex.P1 is the affidavit of the plaintiff No.2 with regarding to genealogical family tree of the plaintiffs and defendant. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.7.1953 to show that the suit schedule property was originally purchased by Sri.Yerappa, grand father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 and father of defendant No. 1. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of GPA dated 11.11.1998. The plaintiffs sought to declare this GPA as null and void and not binding upon them. Ex.P4 is the death certificate of Chinnappa who is the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 to show that he died on 30.6.2007. The 1 st defendant in his written statement has admitted the date of death of Chinnappa. Thus there is no dispute regarding the document Ex.P4 death certificate of Chinnappa. Ex.P5 is the Deed of Revocation / Cancellation of GPA dated 3.4.2013 for having cancelled the GPA dated 11.11.1998 by the plaintiff No. 1 to 3. Even though the plaintiffs in their plaint in para No. 7 have clearly averred regarding this document Deed of Revocation / Cancellation of GPA. The defendant No. 1 neither in his written statement nor in his additional written statement has denied para No. 7 of the plaint by denying this document Deed of Revocation / Cancellation of General Power of Attorney. The document Ex.P6 is the copy of legal notice dated 3.4.2013 sent by the plaintiffs through their counsel to the 1 st defendant for having intimation to the 1 st defendant regarding Revocation / Cancellation of GPA dated 11.11.1998 and intimating him not to deal / transact with respect to the property. Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgment for having served notice to the 1 st defendant. Ex.P8 is the reply notice dated 10.4.2013 sent by the 1 st defendant to the counsel for the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to note that the 1 st defendant in his written statement admitted the receipt of notice sent by the plaintiffs. He contended that he has sent a valid and tenable reply to the said legal notice. Thus there is no dispute regarding these documents Ex.P6 legal notice dated 3.4.2013 issued by the plaintiffs to the 1 st defendant and the document Ex.P8 reply notice dated 10.4.2013 sent by the 1 st defendant to the plaintiffs. Ex.P9 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have prayed to declare this sale deed dated 16.4.2013 as null and void and not binding upon them. I will discuss about the documents Ex.P3 General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.98, Ex.P5 Deed of Revocation / Cancellation of General Power of Attorney and Ex.P9 sale deed dated 16.4.2013 little later part of this judgment. Ex.P10 is the copy of the affidavit filed under RTI in order to obtain documents. Ex.P11 is the copy particulars of suit property obtained by the plaintiffs under RTI. Ex.P12 is the copy of property tax receipt obtained under RTI. Ex.P13 is the copy of khatha certificate of the suit schedule property. Ex.P14 is the copy of khatha extract. These documents Ex.P10 to 14 are all obtained by the plaintiffs under RTI. All these documents Ex.P1 0 to Ex.P14 are all marked subject to objection on the side of the learned counsel for the defendants. But during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the defendants has not made any submission why he has raised the objection while marking these documents. Since these documents are all public documents the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant while marking the documents is not sustainable. These documents are all admissible in evidence. The document Ex.P15 is the paper publication made in Sanjevani daily news paper on 4.4.2013 informing the general public about cancellation of GPA dated 11.11.1998 by the plaintiffs on 3.4.2013. Two more documents are marked on the side of the plaintiffs during the course of cross-examination of DW1. Document Ex.P16 is the certified copy of the gift deed executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of his son 2 nd defendant with respect to the property bearing No. 65/3, BBMP khatha No. 182/177/130 situated at Mangammanapalya village, Yellugunte dhakle, Begur hobli, Bangalore south taluk measuring east to west 80 feet, north to south 30 feet totally measuring 2400 square feet. Since DW1 has admitted about the execution of gift deed dated 16.4.2013 in favour of his son 2 nd defendant this document Ex.P16 is marked through DW1 in his cross-examination. But when the learned counsel for the plaintiffs confronted the document Ex.P17 to DW1 he has denied the signature found on this document. This document Ex.P17 marked through DW1 in order to show that this document was confronted to DW1.

20. Now the question before the court is whether the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and whether the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. According to the DW1 on the strength of General Power of Attorney executed by late Chinnappa and the plaintiffs herein, he had executed a sale deed dated 16.4.2013 in favour of his son, 2 nd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have claimed that the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 had became invalid after the death of Chinnappa on 30.6.2007 and after the plaintiffs have cancelled / revoked the same on 3.4.2013, hence thereafter the said General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 is invalid. Thus first and foremost point to be considered is whether the 1 st defendant had authority to execute the sale deed in favour of his son based on the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998. It is not in dispute that the document Ex.P3 General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 was executed by Chinnappa and his wife and children i.e., the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have taken contention that as on 11.11.1998 the plaintiff No. 2 and 3 were minors. Hence the General Power of Attorney executed by minors are void document. A perusal of Ex.P3 GPA it would shows that Sri.Raghavendra son of Chinnappa and Smt.Lakshmamma was aged 16 years as on 11.11.1998. DW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that as on 11.11.1998 on the date of execution of Ex.P3 plaintiff No. 3 Raghavendra was aged 17 years. This deposition given by DW1 which is voluntary one. DW1 while answering the question regarding the age of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 has deposed that on 11.11.1998 plaintiff No. 2 was aged 18 years and plaintiff No. 3 was aged 17 years. In Ex.P3 General Power of Attorney also the age of the plaintiff No. 3 is mentioned as 16 years. Thus one thing is very clear that as on 11.11.1998 the plaintiff No. 3 was not attained the age of majority and he was minor. It is settled principle of law is that any document executed by the minor is void ab initio. Thus the document Ex.P3 General Power of Attorney is not binding on the plaintiff No. 3. Admittedly Chinnappa brother of the defendant No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 has died on 30.6.2007. The 1 st defendant in his written statement as well as in his oral evidence has admitted the fact that his brother died on 30.6.2007. DW1 in his examination-in-chief itself has deposed that his brother Chinnappa died on 30.6.2007 leaving behind him, his legal heirs, i.e., plaintiff No. 1 to 3. The defendant No. 1 had knowledge about the death of his brother Chinnappa on 30.6.2007. Despite of having knowledge about the death of his brother Chinnappa DW1 on the strength of General Power of Attorney executed by his brother and the plaintiff has executed the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 in favour of his son defendant No. 2.

29. In this suit in the para No. 2 of the plaint the plaintiffs have taken contention that the Chinnappa had acquired suit schedule property by way of partition. In the written statement of the 1 st defendant the 1 st defendant has admitted para No. 2 of the plaint with regarding to relationship between plaintiffs and defendants. But the defendant No.1 has not specifically denied the averments of the plaint that 1 st plaintiff's husband and 2 nd and 3 rd plaintiff's father Chinnappa has acquired the suit schedule property by way of partition. There is no specific denial on the side of the defendant No. 1 regarding the contention of the plaintiffs that Sri.Chinnappa has acquired the suit schedule property by way of partition. The failure on the part of the defendant No. 1 to make specific denial regarding the partition would amounts to admission. The provision under Order VIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. is very clear that the defendant must specifically deny each of the allegations made in the plaint. Under Order 8 Rule 5 of C.P.C. if the defendant not denies specifically it shall be taken to be admitted. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 also the defendant has not denied the chief examination version of PW1 that Chinnappa has acquired suit schedule property by way of partition. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 suggestion is made to him that since the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the 2 nd defendant and as the 1 st defendant by paying the amount to Chinnappa purchased the suit schedule property hence the plaintiffs does not have right over the property. This suggestion is denied by PW1. The defendant No. 1 has not proved by placing cogent evidence to show that he has purchased the suit schedule property for valid consideration of Rs.40,000/- from the father of PW1. DW1 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that late Chinnappa who is his brother died on 30.6.2007 leaving behind him his legal representatives, i.e., plaintiff No. 1 to 3. DW1 has deposed that after the death of his father Yerappa suit schedule property came into his possession and possession of his brother Chinnappa and they were in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. In this suit neither the plaintiffs nor the 1 st defendant has made known to the court about the date of death of Yerappa. Since the 1 st defendant has not seriously disputed about the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint that Chinnappa has acquired the suit schedule property by way of partition, no further proof is required regarding the partition. DW1 in his cross- examination has deposed that there was partition taken place and as per panchayat parikath the properties were divided into 3 hissas. DW1 has not deposed anything about who is another sharer of the property. But fact remains that there was a partition taken place between defendant No. 1 / DW1 and his brother Chinnappa. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P9 sale deed dated 16.4.2003 executed by the 1 st defendant as a GPA holder of Sri.Chinnappa and Smt.Lakshmamma in para No. 2 at page No. 2 of this sale deed, it is clearly mentioned that the property is the vendors ancestral property acquired through a panchayat parikath. In this document Ex.P9 the word vendors refers to Sri.Chinnappa and Smt.Lakshmamma. The very recital of sale deed dated 16.4.2013 executed by defendant No. 1 as a General Power of Attorney holder of Sri.Chinnappa and Smt.Lakshmamma would indicates that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property which was acquired by Sri.Chinnappa (husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3) through a panchayat parikath / partition. In this suit the plaintiffs have prayed to declare them as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property which was acquired by Yerappa and thereafter by Chinnappa and after the death of Chinnappa by the plaintiffs by way of succession. The oral evidence of PW1, DW1 and documents Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P9 are sufficient to hold that Sri.Chinnappa who is the father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 1 has acquired the suit schedule property by way of partition. There is no dispute that Chinnappa died on 30.6.2007 leaving behind him his legal heirs plaintiff No. 1 to 3. After the death of Sri.Chinnappa the plaintiffs being legal heirs of Sri.Chinnappa become the owners of the suit schedule property by way of succession. While discussing issue No. 3 this court opined that the plaintiffs proved that General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 was ceases soon after the death of Chinnappa, so far as Chinnappa is concerned and it will ceases soon after the plaintiffs have cancelled / revoked the same on 3.4.2003 as they have intimated the same to the defendant No. 1 by sending legal notice dated 3.4.2013. Thus the plaintiffs proved that General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 has become null and void and not binding upon them. The document Ex.P9 copy of sale deed dated 16.4.2013 which was executed by the 1 st defendant as a General Power of Attorney holder of Sri.Chinnappa and Lakshmamma in favour of his son 2 nd defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. Since this sale deed dated 16.4.2013 executed by the 1 st defendant after the death of his brother Chinnappa and after the cancellation / revocation of the General Power of Attorney by the plaintiffs this sale deed dated 16.4.2013 also become null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The defendants have not produced any documents to show that based on the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 the consideration amount of Rs.4,20,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed passed to defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. When question asked by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the cross-examination of DW1 that why he had executed sale deed instead of gift deed to his son then he answered by apprehending that anybody may ask about the property, hence he executed the sale deed. It is pertinent to note that the document Ex.P16 copy of gift deed dated 16.4.2013 with respect to another property marked through DW1 in his cross-examination which would go to show that on the same day on 16.4.2013 defendant No. 1 gifted another property bearing old khaneshumari No. 65/3 and BBMP khatha No. 182/177/130 situated at Mangammanapalya village, Yellukunte dhakle, property bearing measuring east to west 80 feet and north to south 30 feet totally measuring 2400 square feet in favour of his son defendant No. 2. Even though DW1 in his cross- examination claimed that his son defendant No. 2 has paid sale consideration of Rs.4,20,000/- to him by way of cash, the defendant No.1 has not produced any document to show that his son had such huge amount of cash in his hand to pay the sale consideration amount. DW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that in the year 2013 his son was doing cooli work. Under such circumstances it is not believable that such huge consideration amount of Rs.4,20,000/- was passed from the defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 under sale deed dated 16.4.2013. On this count also the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 became null and void. After the death of Sri.Chinnappa brother of the 1 st defendant as the General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 ceases, the defendant No. 1 has no authority to execute the sale deed in favour of his son on the strength of General Power of Attorney executed by late Chinnappa. DW1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the strength of General Power of Attorney executed by late Chinnappa and the plaintiffs he had executed a sale deed in favour of his son pertaining to the suit schedule property. After the death of Chinnappa and after the plaintiffs revoked the General Power of Attorney the 1 st defendant has no authority to execute the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of his son on the strength of General Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs have proved that the sale deed dated 16.4.2013 is null and void and not binding upon them. The plaintiffs have proved that General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.1998 became null and void after the death of Sri.Chinnappa and after the plaintiffs have cancelled / revoked the same by executing Deed of Revocation / Cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 3.4.2013 and by issuing notice dated 3.4.2013 regarding revocation / cancellation of General Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule property was acquired by Chinnappa by way of partition. After the death of Chinnappa the plaintiffs being his legal heirs succeeded the suit schedule property by way of succession and thus the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have proved that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Hence I answered Issue No. 1 in the Affirmative, Issue No. 3 in the Affirmative and Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.