Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
C.M. POONACHA, J.
Smt. Lalitha B., W/o. Late B.E. Prakash and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Bagmane Developers Private Limited, Represented By Its Authorised Signatory And General Manager Mr. Shashank Bagmane and Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7778 of 2024 (CPC) C/W Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7889 of 2024 (CPC), Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7953 of 2024 (CPC) Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7995 of 2024 (CPC)
Decided On : 25-06-2025
For the Appellants : Sri. R.S. Ravi, Senior Counsel for Sri. Shivaraju M.K., Adv.
For the Respondents:Sri. Bipin Hegde, Advocate for Smt. Rakshitha D.J., Adv.
An irrevocable General Power of Attorney coupled with interest cannot be unilaterally terminated, confirming that rights under executed agreements must be honored.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1871 - Section 202 - Nature of irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) - Plaintiffs claim 1/7th share of property, challenging dismissal of their application for Temporary Injunction - Trial Court finds unilateral termination of GPA impermissible, affirming defendant's rights under paid agreements - The court held that GPA being irrevocable coupled with interest cannot be unilaterally terminated. (Paras 10, 21, 25)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claim a 1/7th share in property and allege the transactions with defendants were loan agreements, not sales. They seek to terminate GPAs executed, asserting they still possess the property despite sale deeds registered in favor of the defendant. (Paras 4, 5, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's finding is that plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case for injunction, affirming defendant's possession and ownership of property resulting from executed sale agreements. (Paras 28, 30)
Issues: The court addresses whether the unilateral termination of the GPA was justified and if the plaintiffs established the necessity for the injunction applications. (Paras 11, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The irrevocable GPA is classified as coupled with interest, hence the plaintiffs cannot terminate it unilaterally. The court substantiates that the entire sale consideration was duly acknowledged as received. (Paras 25, 26)
Result: Appeals dismissed as devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of appeals ordered (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims to undivided property interests (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on agreements and powers (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. analysis of temporary injunction applications (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 21) |
| 5. nature of irrevocable power of attorney. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. irrevocability of power of attorney (Para 16 , 25) |
| 7. supporting case law related to gpa. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. implications of property possession claims. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 9. standard for appellate review of trial court discretion. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. conclusion and dismissal of appeals (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
(C.M. POONACHA, J. )
MFA Nos.7953/2024 and 7995/2024 are filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 5.9.2024 passed in OS No.7375/2023 by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-11), Bengaluru, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’], whereunder IA Nos.1 and 2 filed by them were dismissed. MFA No.7889/2024 and 7778/2024 are filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 5.9.2024 passed in OS No.7374/2023 by the Trial Court challenging the dismissal of IA Nos.1 and 2 filed by them in the said suit.
2. In both the suits the plaintiffs/appellants are claiming their respective 1/7th share each in Sy.No.54/3 (earlier part of Sy.No.54), which measures 2 acres situated at Byrasandra Hobli, K.R.Puram Taluk, Bengaluru, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’] and for other reliefs. The defendants in all the suits are the same. The relevant factual matrix in the suits is also similar and hence, the above appeals are taken up together for consideration.
3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that one Jayamma and her children instituted OS No.7375/2023 for a declaration that the plaintiffs are having 1/7th undivided right, title and interest in the suit schedule ‘A’ property as also for a declaration that the Agreement of Sale dated 27.7.2021 and irrevocable General Power of Attorney, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘irrevocable GPA’] dated 27.7.2021 executed in favour of defendant No.1 are null and void and for the other reliefs. One Lalitha and her children instituted OS No.7374/2023 for a declaration that they have undivided 1/7th right in the suit schedule ‘A’ property and for similar reliefs as sought in OS No.7375/2023.
5. It is the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits that they have undivided 1/7th share in the suit schedule ‘A’ property and being in need of financial accommodation by way of loan, were introduced to defendant Nos.1 and 2, who extended the financial assistance as required by the plaintiffs, on certain conditions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs executed Agreements of Sale dated 27.7.2021 and irrevocable GPAs dated 27.7.2021. Vide the said Agreements of Sale, it was agreed that the total sale consideration for the property of the plaintiffs was `4,56,57,000/- and that the entire sale consideration was paid by the purchaser/defendant No.1 and received by the plaintiffs on the said date. Under the irrevocable GPAs, the plaintiffs authorized defendant No.1 to act on their behalf. That a suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.1710/2008 was pending consideration, wherein the plaintiffs were parties and that defendant Nos.1 to 3 had misrepresented the plaintiffs that they would take care of the suit in OS No.1710/2008. That the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants have got the said suit withdrawn by filing an application Under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’]. Further, the plaintiffs approached the defendants to enable repayment of the loan amount or to exercise the other option of purchasing the suit property by paying the entire sale consideration which was the market value of the property. However, the defendants did not respond to the same. That the plaint
