A registered General Power of Attorney, if unchallenged, retains legal effect, and deeds executed thereunder are valid despite subsequent allegations of fabrication.

j

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned appeal is by the subsequent transferee who has questioned the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.47/2011, wherein the trial Court has decreed the suit thereby declaring the deed of cancellation dated 18.12.2007 executed by defendant No.1 and consequent sale deeds dated 28.06.2008 and 20.11.2010 entered into between defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 as void documents. These sale deeds are accordingly set aside. The present appellant who is a pendente lite purchaser has questioned the decree granted in O.S.No.47/2011.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff, who is the son of Defendant No.1, has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mangaluru Taluk, is fraudulent, null, and void. Consequentially, the plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the sale deed dated 28.06.2008 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3, and the subsequent sale deed dated 20.11.2010 executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.4, are likewise void documents.

-

4. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property through his father under the registered settlement deed dated 08.05.2006. According to the plaintiff, his father had transferred the property in accordance with the terms of the said settlement deed. The plaintiff further acknowledges that his father had originally acquired the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.1997. Following the execution of the settlement deed, the plaintiff asserts that he became the absolute owner and was in exclusive possession of the property.

5. The plaintiff contends that both he and Defendant No.1 were residing in Mumbai and that it was only in the last week of November 2010, while attempting to obtain a housing loan to construct a residential building, that he discovered, through the computerized RTC of the suit property, that the property stood in the name of Defendant No.3 pursuant to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru on 28.06.2010. This discovery prompted the plaintiff to obtain certified copies of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the appeal memo filed by Defendant No.3, and the written arguments submitted by Defendant No.1 in mutation proceedings, in which he was arrayed as a respondent.

-

6. Referring to these documents, the plaintiff specifically alleged that his father, acting on the strength of the cancellation deed dated 18.12.2007 which purportedly cancelled the settlement deed executed on 08.05.2006 based on a fraudulent GPA conveyed the property in favour of Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3, in turn, sold the property to Defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.2010. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a declaration that these documents were null and void.

-

7. Defendant No.1, the father of the plaintiff, appeared upon receiving summons and filed a written statement denying all averments in the plaint. He specifically contended that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed a power of attorney (GPA) on 18.02.2008 before a Notary Public and Advocate T.T. Shahare, as the buyer required the plaintiff’s participation