Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
M. S. Ananthamurthy – Appellant
Versus
J. Manjula Etc – Respondent
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants (Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025, arising from SLP(C) Nos. 13618-13619/2020) with no order as to costs, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the High Court of Karnataka. (!) (!) (!)
Invalidity of 1998 Sale Deed: The General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 04.04.1986, even if irrevocable, stood revoked by the death of the original owner (Muniyappa @ Ruttappa) on 30.01.1997. Consequently, the sale deed executed by A. Saraswathi on 01.04.1998 in favor of appellant no. 2 was null and void ab initio, as the POA holder lacked authority post-principal's death to transfer title. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Title and Possession with Answering Respondent: The chain of title through registered sale deeds (2003 from legal heirs to respondent no. 7, then to respondent no. 8) and the registered gift deed (2004 from respondent no. 8 to answering respondent no. 9 / J. Manjula) conferred valid title and uninterrupted possession upon the answering respondent. Her possession was protected by these registered documents, entitling her to the decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 133/2007. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Limitation Bar: The suit O.S. No. 4045/2008 filed by appellants in 2008 was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (12-year period from date of possession of defendants). The cause of action, if any, arose in 2003-2004 upon execution of respondents' documents, rendering the suit time-barred. (!) (!)
No Requirement to Challenge Earlier Documents: In the injunction suit (O.S. 133/2007), the answering respondent, being a bona fide purchaser for value under registered deeds without notice, was not required to challenge the unregistered 1986 agreement or the invalid 1998 sale deed, as her title was independent and superior. (!) (!)
The judgments of the courts below were affirmed in entirety, confirming the answering respondent's absolute ownership and possession of the Suit Property, with the appellants' claims rejected. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
| INDEX | |
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | IMPUGNED JUDGMENT |
| C. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S) |
| D. | SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) |
| E. | ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION |
| F. | ANALYSIS i. Relationship between the Executant and Holder of General Power of Attorney ii. Independent Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell a. ‘Interest’ in Power of Attorney b. Nature of Power of Attorney iii. Combined Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell iv. Effect of Suit for Injunction simpliciter |
| G. | CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also the self-same, hence those were taken up analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. These appeals have been filed before this Court from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 16.10.2019 in R.F.A. No. 1318/2014 c/w R.F.A. No. 1317/2014 (“impugned judgment”)
(1) Rights of POA Holder – POA Holder cannot execute agreement to sell on behalf of Principal where POA is not irrevocable.(2) Interpretation of Documents (POA) – While construing a document, a reade....
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 – Execution of decree – Mutation entry in revenue records does not create title nor has any presumptive value on title, but only enables the....
Fraud vitiates all transactions; unregistered agreements do not confer title or interest in property, and judgments obtained through fraud can be quashed by the High Court under Article 227.
No right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document, validating the necessity for registration per applicable laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, which focuses on the lower court's jurisdiction and not....
General Power of Attorney ceases upon the death of the principal, invalidating any subsequent sale deeds executed without the consent of all necessary parties.
(1) [By Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah]]Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were....
The agency created in favor of the defendant continued to remain in force even after the death of the principal, and the registered documents carry a presumption that they were genuinely executed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
