N. Ananda , J.—Heard Sri. H.R. Anantha Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for petitioners in HRRP 293/2010, 290/2010, 291/2010, 292/2010, 294/2010 and Sri. H. Ramachandra, learned counsel for petitioners in HRRP 325/ 2010, 327/2010 and Sri. N. Vasudevan, learned counsel for first respondent in these revision petitions.

In order to avoid confusion, parties will be referred to by their names.

The first respondent namely Somashekar in all the petitions had filed eviction petitions against several tenants including petitioners in HRRP 325/2010 and 327/2010.

2. The second respondent namely, Muniyamma impleaded herself and contested the eviction petitions. It is the case of Somashekar that he had purchased the suit schedule property (larger part of schedule premises) from it's previous owner Muniyappa, S/o. Muni Veerappa represented by his General Power of Attorney holder Gowramma (who is none other than mother of Somashekar). The tenants herein disputed title of Somashekar. Smt. Muniyamma got impleaded as second respondent and she contested eviction petitions inter alia contending 'that the schedule property was acquired by Muni Veerappa (her father-in-law). The said Muni Veerappa had two sons namely Muniyappa and Muniswamy (husband of Muniyamma) Muniswamy-husband of Muniyamma predeceased his father. After the demise of Muniswamy, Muni Veerappa (father-in-law of Muniyamma) had given schedule properties to Muniyamma under maintenance deed dated 20.06.1991. Since then, Muniyamma is in lawful possession of schedule property. Therefore, Somashekar is not the lawful owner of schedule property. The vendor of Somashekar namely Muniyappa had neither title nor possession over schedule property to transfer the same to Somashekar. Muniyamma has denied the execution of Power of Attorney in favour of Gowramma (mother of Somashekar) and execution of sale deed by Gowramma in favour of Somashekar.

3. At the first instance, eviction petitions were allowed. Therefore, the tenants were before this Court in HRRP 313/2007, 314/ 2007, 315/2007, 308/2007, 310/2007, 307/ 2007, 306/2007 and 309/2007. This Court by order dated 03.02.2009 noticing judgment made in O.S. No. 6807/1997 and also non-production of deed of Power of Attorney executed in favour of Gowramma remanded the matter for reconsideration and permitted both parties to lead additional evidence and directed the trial Court to pass orders afresh on merits. After the remand, Somashekar produced the deed of power of attorney stated to have been executed by the original owner Muniyappa, S/o Muni Veerappa in favour of Gowramma as per Ex. P18.

4. On consideration of contents of deed of General Power of Attorney dated 03.06.1991 stated to be executed by Muniyappa in favour of Gowramma, I find that Muniyappa, S/o Muni Veerappa had not constituted Gowramma as Power of Attorney to sell the schedule property on his behalf. On the other hand, Muniyappa has sold schedule property to Gowramma under the deed of power of attorney dated 3.6.1991.

Along with the General Power of Attorney, Muniyappa, S/o Muni Veerappa had also sworn to an affidavit purporting to sell schedule property in favour of Gowramma who in turn sold schedule property in favour of her son Somashekar under registered sale deed dated 09.07.1999.

The law is fairly well settled that transfer of immovable property cannot take place by execution of power of attorney.

5. In a decision reported in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2011 (11) SCALE 438 the Supreme Court has held:

15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain Vs. The Canara Bank and Others, 94 (2001) DLT 841 , that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognised as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/ GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public