An agreement to sell does not confer any interest or title in the property, and an unregistered Power of Attorney does not transfer any interest in the property. The remedy for the appellant lies in filing a suit for compensation under the Specific Relief Act, Section 21.

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—This appeal arises from the judgment and award/decree dated 31.7.1999 delivered by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in proceedings under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The land, in the present case, had been acquired vide notification dated 12.12.1991. This is the date on which the preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act had been issued. This notification was published on 10.3.1994. The final notification in that regard is dated 24.1.1996 and was published in Gazette dated 25.1.1996 whereunder the land in dispute namely Sy. No. 6 with total acres of 11.01 guntas inclusive of 0.18 guntas of karab land situated in Konadasapura Village, Bangalore South Taluk, along with some other lands was acquired. According to the case of the appellant, as pleaded, the original owner of the land was one Venkatappa. Venkatappa died during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings and was succeeded by Smt. Narayanamma, widow of Venktappa. The land was acquired for the purpose of shifting the wholesale Iron and Steel market yard. According to the case of the appellant, Smt. Narayanamma executed an agreement to sell the land in question vide Ex.P-25, copy of which is at page Nos. 52 and 53 of the paper-book. According to the case of the appellant, she agreed to sell the land for sale consideration of Rs. 10,000.00 to the extent of land of 0.30 guntas of the said plot for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00. The terms of the agreement to sell are contained in deed Ex. P-25, copy of which is at page No. 52 of the paper-book. According to the case of the appellant, Smt. Narayanamma also executed a Power-of-Attorney in favour of the appellant namely Smt. Rajamma which is on record as Ex.P-26. Both these deeds admittedly are unregistered documents and according to the appellant's case, they were notarized. The admitted position is that, Exs.P-25 and P-26 are unregistered documents though they had been verified before the Notary. On the basis of these two documents, the appellant (claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer and before the Reference Court) claimed to be entitled to get the proportionate compensation with regard to 0.30 guntas of land. The reference Court, after perusal of the evidence on record, held that the present appellant failed to prove due execution of the agreement to sell and passing of consideration as well as he failed to establish the execution of alleged Power of Attorney. That on the basis of the findings that the present appellant failed to establish and prove the agreement to sell (Ex.P-25) and Power of Attorney, it held that the present appellant (claimant) was not entitled to make the claim nor to be granted the same which the appellants have made before us. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Civil Court, Smt. Rajamma who has based her claim on the basis of the agreement to sell as well as on the Power of Attorney dated 23.3.1987, has come up before this Court by way of this appeal.

3. We have heard Sri P. Krishnappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri H.N. Prakash, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the finding recorded by the reference Court regarding appellant's failure to prove Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-26 is vitiated by error of law and is based on misappreciation of the material on record. He contended that the agreement to sell coupled with Power of Attorney confers a right on the appellant to receive the compensation or proportionate compensation with reference to the land acquired. The learned Counsel made reference to certain cases.

5. These contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant have hotly been contested on behalf of the Respondents.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the finding recorded by the Court below, that the appellant had failed to prove the execution of agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney, does