( 1 ) THESE three appeals are disposed of by this common order. All these three appeals arise out of an order passed in O. S. No. 3421/ 2000 dated 8. 2. 2002 by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, bangalore.

( 2 ) R. F. A. No. 386/2002 is filed by Nagendra Babu. Facts" in brief are as under:

One Mr. Manohar Rao Pawar, the plaintiff-respondent filed a plaint in O. S. No, 3421/2000. According to the petition averments, he is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule site. It is a portion of the larger area bearing Corporation No. 10. Properties stood in the name of late Shivaramanand Bharath. The plaintiff purchased the same for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed dated 8. 7. 1987. The defendant is a stranger to the suit property. He has no manner of right, title or interest. He started a school called Kids Convent located at the north-East corner of No. 10 of the Corporation. The suit schedule property/ site and location of the school in No. 10 are shown in the sketch annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff is temporarily outside the country. His G. P. A. holder looks after the property. G. P. A, holder received information that some one is digging the storm water drainage on the northern side of the suit schedule property. The G. P. A. holder of the plaintiff and the younger brother of the plaintiff traced the defendant and enquired him thereafter. With these facts the plaintiff sought for a declaration and a consequential injunction in terms of the plaint averments.

( 3 ) SUIT was contested. The defendant states that the property described in the alleged sale deed by the plaintiff is different from the suit schedule property. In the year 1887, late Sri shivaramanand Bharathi was not in possession of any immovable -property in his personal capacity. Property stood in his name and it was in the capacity as a Matadhipathi of Sri Gosai mutt, Gavipuram, Bangalore. The Government took over the management, with all its properties. This was challenged in O. S. NO. 338/1973 by late Sri Shivaramanand Bharath. Suit was finally disposed of on 11. 8. 1987. Late Sri Shivaramanand Bharathi filed execution petition for possession of the immovable property, as per Judgment and Decree. Execution petition was closed for default on 4. 10. 1991. Thereafter, Execution Petition No. 786/1996 was filed and the same is pending. The defendant is in possession of the property in his own right. He purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 5. 3. 1990. Sri Gosai Mutt filed the suit in o. S. No. 2372/ 1999 against the defendant. A counter suit was filed by the defendant-appellant in o. S. No. 2400/i999. Both the suits were compromised on 7. 2. 2000. Defendant is in possession of the property. Learned Trial Judge framed 13 issues.

( 4 ) THREE witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. One witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. 12 documents were marked for plaintiff and 26 documents were marked for defendants. Learned Trial Judge heard the matter and thereafter, he by the impugned order dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. He granted injunction against the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court in R. F. A. No. 386/2002.

( 5 ) R. F. A. NO. 664/2002 is filed by this very appellant-defendant seeking for lodging a complaint for fabrication and forgery of Ex. P2 and for sending the same to the jurisdictional Metropolitan magistrate at Bangalore City for action in accordance with law.

( 6 ) R. F. A. NO. 495/2002 is filed by the plaintiff challenging the findings regarding the title of the plaintiff in the case on hand.

( 7 ) HEARD Sri S. P. Dondale, learned Counsel at great length. He took me through the pleadings and evidence on record to contend that the suit itself is not maintainable in the light of the suit having been filed by a person not having an acceptable power of attorney. He relies on the evidence and also the Judgment of the Co