Plaintiffs must establish ownership through proper pleadings and evidence; failure to do so renders claims insufficient under law.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

1. These two appeals are filed by plaintiffs against the common judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012, passed in O.S. Nos.714/2008 and 715/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli (for short ‘the trial Court’), which is confirmed by the common judgement and decree dated 21.07.2014 passed in RA Nos. 89 and 90 of 2012 respectively on the file III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’).

2. Suit in OS No.714/2002 is originally filed by one Shri Shadaksharayya S/o Charantayya Chikkamath, while suit in OS No.715/2025 is originally filed by one Smt. Parvatevva W/o. Basalingayya Chikmath. The suit schedule property in OS No.714/2008 is land in RS No.122/1A measuring 36 guntas and suit schedule property in OS No.715/2008 is land in RS No.122/A/1B measuring 36 guntas both situated at Krishnapura village, Hubli taluk.

3. Identical pleading found in both the plaints are that the plaintiffs in the aforesaid respective suits were absolute owners and title holders of the suit properties and that their names continued in the revenue records up to the year 2000 to 2005. That common defendant No.2 namely, Sri. Shankar S/o. Mallappa Vibhuti had created a forged and fabricated power of attorney based on which he executed deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1 conveying the respective suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs learnt about the said acts when a paper publication in Samyukta Karnataka Kannada News paper dated 01.11.2004 was issued by defendant No.1 regarding he having entered into agreement with the plaintiffs and obtaining general power of attorney for the plaintiff, to which the plaintiffs issued reply contending that they had never executed any general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 and the execution of deed of sale by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, was illegal and not binding on them.

4. It is further alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 based on the aforesaid documents have negotiated for sale of plots formed by them in the suit lands to third parties. The said persons are trying to construct the buildings on the suit land for plots. Therefore, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file above suits seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 17.12.2005 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of the alleged power of attorney dated 11.08.2000 as not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from creating any third party interest or putting up any construction over the subject land.

5. The written statement to the said suits came to be filed by defendant No.1 alleging that suits have been filed at the instance of one Mallikarjun C. Patil of Hubli, who was defendant in OS No.348/2008 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Hubli, and the suits filed without making the said person as party were not maintainable. Claim of plaintiffs being lawful owners in possession of the suit schedule properties having inherited same is denied. The allegations of defendant No.2 fabricating power of attorney and executing deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1 is also denied. It is contended that the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale on 15.07.2008 to sell the suit properties in favour of defendant No.2 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid