A power of attorney does not divest the principal of the right to sell property unless actively utilized for such conveyance; prior valid sale deeds are upheld.

JUDGMENT :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

1. This appeal is against concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title, injunction and cancellation of sale deed.

2. Suit is for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.08.2006 executed by 2^nd defendant in favour of first defendant and registered before the Sub-registrar at Kengeri, Bengaluru at document No.20183/2006-07.

3. Defendant No.1 is the purchaser under the aforementioned sale deed dated 28.08.2006. Defendant No.2 is said to be the power of attorney holder of the owner of the property who is not made a party to the suit and defendant No.2 claims to have sold the property to defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated28.08.2006 acting on the power of attorney executed by Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar.

4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit. First defendant took a contention that he has purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 28.08.2006 from defendant No.2 the GPA holder of the vendor Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar. The power of attorney dated 12.09.1996 in favour of defendant No.2 is duly registered.

5. Thus, defendant No.1 claims title and possession of the property based on the said sale deed dated28.08.2006.

6. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the property from the owner of the property Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.2004, as such, 2^nd defendant the power of attorney holder had no right to sell the property as the power of attorney holder of Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that General Power of Attorney in favour of 2^nd defendant is duly registered and is coupled with interest and the plaintiff's vendor who sold the property on 29.07.2004 had not cancelled the said power of attorney on the date of execution of the registered sale deed on29.07.2004.

8. The Trial Court held that Sri B.V. Dikshit Kumar did not have the title over the property as on 29.07.2004 as he had executed a registered power of attorney coupled with interest on 12.09.2006 in favour of defendant No.2.

9. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and the legal representatives are brought on record.

10. This appeal was admitted on 04.04.2025 to answer the following substantial questions of law:

"When Ex.D6 (GPoA) though registered, was not coupled with interest and did not divest Sri BV Dikshith Kumar (Principal) from dealing with suit property, whether both Courts erred in denying relief of declaration of title based on Ex.P1-sale deed though it was prior to Ex.D1-sale deed executed by defendant no.2 (GPoA) in favour of defendant no.1?"

11. It is noticed that there are few clerical errors in the substantial question of law. Hence, it is modified as under:

"When Ex.P6 (GPoA) though registered, was not coupled with interest and did not divest Sri BV Dikshith Kumar (Principal) from dealing with suit property, whether both Courts erred in denying relief of declaration of title based on Ex.P1-sale deed though it was prior to Ex.P8-sale deed executed by defendant no.2 (GPoA) in favour of defendant no.1?"

12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would submit as under.

13.1 The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is dated 29.07.2004 and that has been duly registered and vendor has not assailed the said sale deed. Second sale deed which is sought to be cancelled is dated 28.08.2006 and said to have been executed by the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff's vendor. Said power of attorney holder is arrayed as