The validity of the Power of Attorney and the plaintiff's possession of the property were central to the court's decision.

K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.-These two appeals by the common appellant are directed against the common judgment and decree in O.S. No. 11324/1996 and O.S. No. 3192/1995 dismissing the suit of the appellant in O.S. No. 11324/1996 and decreeing the suit of the respondent-R. Narayanappa in O.S. No. 3192/1995.

2. O.S. No. 11324/1996 was filed by the common appellant-G. Krishnappa against two Defendants namely, Syed Irfan Ahmed and R. Narayanappa, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property;

(ii) Declaring the sale deed executed by D1 in favour of D2 vide Doc. No. 741/1993-94 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, Bangalore, as null and void;

(iii) Declaring that the illegal G.P.A. registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, vide No. 1019/82-83 in Volume 273 in book IV pages 23-24 dated 01.02.1993 by forging the signature of the plaintiff by D1 as null and void;

(iv) Permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff against Defendant No. 2 not to alienate the suit schedule property;

(v) For the cost of suit;

(vi) Any other remedies that may be required in the instant case.

3. O.S. No. 11324/1996 came to be filed by R. Narayanappa against G. Krishnappa seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the said G. Krishnappa from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The subject matter of both the suit being one and the same is the land bearing Khaneshmari No. 85/B, of Thanisandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore-45, measuring East-West: 76 ft. and North-South 27.6 ft.

4. In O.S. No. 11324/1996, the plaintiff-G. Krishnappa, inter alia contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired title to the same under the registered sale deed dated 13.08.1982,executed by one Hanuma @ Komma and since the date of the sale in his favour, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same; that Katha in respect of the said property was also made-out in his name and he has been paying taxes to the concerned authorities; that Defendant No. 1-Syed Irfan Ahmed by taking advantage of the plaintiff's weakness towards alcohol and by hatching conspiracy, convinced the plaintiff that he is going to purchase the suit schedule property and on that false pretext, Defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff and subsequently, by gaining confidence of the plaintiff got the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour; that on coming to know of the motive on the part of Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff questioned Defendant No. 1 about his illegal act and immediately refunded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Defendant No. 1 in the year 1986; that after accepting the said amount, Defendant No. 1 destroyed the original General Power of Attorney made in his favour and also expressed that no longer he is interested in purchasing the property and that the plaintiff can sell the same to whomsoever he likes; that the plaintiff was shocked and surprised to know when he went to obtain mutation and katha assessment from the Secretary, Village Panchayat, Thanisandra, that mutation in respect of the schedule property has been changed in the name of Defendant No. 2-R. Narayanappa on 20.10.1996; that on coming to know of the same, the plaintiff realized that the Defendant No. 1 has deceived him and learnt that by forging a General Power of Attorney, Defendant No. 1 has executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 2, pursuant to which the name of Defendant No. 2-R. Narayanappa came to be entered in the records; that at no point of time, he executed the registered Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1, as such, Defendant No. 2 has not derived any title to the suit schedule property under the sale deed purported to have been executed by Defendant No. 1-Syed Irfan Ahmed in favour of Defendant No. 2-R. Nar