Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The plaintiffs further stated that even the 2nd plaintiff also lost two new clothes with cash of Rs.250/- which were kept in the said vehicle and all those documents were kept in the hand bag and the same was lost during his transit. It is further contended that in that connection 2nd defendant has lodged police complaint on 1/4/2006 before the Kengeri Police authorities and the said police have received the complaint and issued acknowledgment. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have also issued the public notice in the daily news paper, "The Hindu" on 18/4/2006. It is further contended that the 2nd defendant in the first week of August 2009, illegally trespassed into a portion of suit schedule property measuring 12 x 10 feet behind the back of the plaintiffs and unauthorizedly put up temporary shed of ACC sheet roof and the plaintiffs came to know the illegal acts and trespass of the 2nd defendant in collusion with the 1st defendant on 10/8/2009 when the 2nd plaintiff visited the suit schedule property. It is further contended that on enquiry, the 2nd plaintiff reliably came to know that the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant collusively appeared to have created some document and trespassed into the portion of the suit schedule property. There afterwards the plaintiffs have questioned the illegal acts of the 2nd defendant and her husband Shashi Nayak. At that point the 2nd defendant disclosed that based on the alleged GPA dated 29/6/2000 said to have been executed by 3rd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant has created illegal document without having any manner of right, title, much less possession by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on 15/11/2006 under the registered sale deed dated 15/11/2006. It is further contended that the 3rd defendant, at no point of time, had executed any power of attorney in favour of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant has no right or authority to execute the registered sale deed dated 15/11/2006 in favour of the 2nd defendant and it appears that the 1st defendant might have found the lost document of the plaintiffs on 31/3/2006, which contains the signatures of the 3rd defendant on blank stamp papers and it appears to have created the document as if the alleged GPA said to have been executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant, even though the 3rd defendant consciously has not executed any such GPA in favour of the 1st defendant and any document created by the 1st defendant is contrary to the facts and the same does not binds upon the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants have not acquired any manner of right, title, much less possession over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the alleged schedule mentioned in the said sale deed dated 15/11/2006, clearly goes to show the conduct of the defendant No.1 and 2 in creating the document by giving wrong measurements.

42. In the light of the above rival contentions, I have gone through the records. The plaintiffs claiming absolute right over the suit property under registered gift deed dated 31/3/2006, when that would be the case, the basic burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish the fact that whether the gift deed executed by defendant No.3 who is none other than the mother of the plaintiff is valid and is there any acceptance of gift by the plaintiff under the said document. Upon perusal of the evidence of the parties, it shows that the defendant No.3 was in financial difficulties during the year 2000. So she has approached one Mr. M.Anil Kumar and obtained Rs.2,00,000/- and at that particular point of time, she has executed Ex.P9 sale agreement and some other signed blank stamp papers and also handed over the original title deed pertaining to the suit schedule property, i.e. Ex.P8 dated 14/10/1991. The plaintiffs though contended that subsequently their mother defendant No.3 repaid the loan and the said M.Anil Kumar returned all the documents and also executed Ex.P10 cancellation of sale agreement on 31/3/2006 and though they contended that the said documents were lost while going in two wheeler, but in proof of the said stand taken by them, no acceptable materials has been placed before the court. The evidence on record shows that the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property is in the custody of the defendant No.1 and subsequently when he executed sale deed by virtue of Ex.D4 and D5, i.e., GPA and affidavit in favour of defendant No.1 on behalf of defendant No.3 he has handed over all the title deeds of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2. The plaintiffs contended that though they lodged complaint with regard to the document lost by them while going in two wheeler, but subsequently after coming to know with regard to the original documents relating to the suit schedule property in the custody of defendant No.1 and 2 they have not taken any action with regard to the said aspect. So far as this aspect is concerned, absolutely there is no specific pleading in the plaint or nothing has been stated by PW1 in her examination-in-chief. When that would be the case, the theory of the plaintiffs that they lost the original documents and other documents while going in two wheeler cannot be accepted, when the oral and documentary evidence on record speaks otherwise.

56. Issue No.3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9: All these three issues are interconnected, therefore they have been taken together for common consideration and discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and also for the sake of convenience.

57. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they acquired title to the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.P1 gift deed dated 31/3/2006 and they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 and 2 by colluding with each other, by taking advantage of the lost original document relating to the suit schedule property and some signed blank stamp papers, got created documents as if defendant No.3, their mother executed general power of attorney and affidavit authorizing defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that taking advantage of the signed blank papers, the defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 15/11/2006. So it is their specific contention that though defendant No.3 has not executed any kind of GPA or affidavit in favour of defendant No.1, at any point of time, defendant No.1 and 2 by colluding with each other, taking advantage of the lost documents secured by them, got created the documents in order to knock off the suit schedule property. So they contended that whatever the documents got created by defendant No.1 and 2 are not at all binding upon them.

74. As it is already discussed in detail in issue No.1, 2 and 7 with regard to the contention taken by the plaintiffs that after repayment of loan to M.Anil Kumar, he has handed over all the original documents relating to the suit schedule property and also some signed blank stamp papers and while going in two wheeler, they lost the said documents is concerned, no satisfactory evidence has been placed before the court. On the contrary the evidence on records, that is to say, the very evidence given by PW1 during the course of her cross- examination shows that whatever the evidence given by her in the cross is quite contrary to the stand taken by them in their plaint. PW1 in her cross-examination admitted that her mother lost the sale deed relating to the suit schedule property after 31/3/2006. Even upon perusal of Ex.D9 at clause No.6, it clearly depicts that defendant No.3 only given the copies of the original title deeds relating to the suit schedule property to M.Anil Kumar. When that would be the case, the whole theory of the plaintiffs, that is, they lost the documents while going in two wheeler cannot be accepted. As it is already discussion above, even after coming to know that the original documents and signed stamp blank papers are in custody of defendant No.1 inspite of that they have not made any venture to take appropriate action against the defendant No.1 and 2. Admittedly the plaintiffs produced complaint copy at Ex.P11, but inspite of that they have not intimated the factum of the lost documents in the custody of the defendant No.1 to the police authorities. So from the very silence on the part of the plaintiffs, it can be inferred that they are very well aware that defendant No.3, their mother, due to her financial crises given the suit schedule property for sale amount of Rs.1,10,000/- under Ex.D4 general power of attorney and Ex.D5 affidavit to defendant No.1 and on that day itself, she handed over the possession and all the original documents relating to the suit schedule property to the defendant No.1. When that would be the case, the contention taken by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1, trespassed into the suit schedule property and by got creating the documents, got executed registered sale deed on 15/11/2006 as per Ex.D6 cannot be accepted and also the say of the plaintiffs that those documents would not bind them cannot be accepted.