A suit for declaration of ownership is barred by limitation when filed more than three years after the cause of action arises, particularly if adverse legal actions are not promptly contested.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017 passed in R.A. No.10165 of 2016 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura and the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2015 passed in O.S. No.265 of 2006 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal as follows.

4. The original plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting the standing trees or otherwise dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He has purchased the suit schedule property from one B.S. Shardamma under a registered sale deed dated 09.03.1981. The plaintiff proposed to sell the suit schedule property and executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 as he promised to sell the property and get the plaintiff a good price.

6. Defendant No.1 had not taken any interest over the suit land and not made any attempt to convert the said land for more than 1 year. Hence, the plaintiff cancelled the General Power of Attorney on 27.05.1995. This fact was within the knowledge of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 had no authority to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and, in turn, defendant No.2 sold the suit property to defendant No.3. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

7. The defendants filed a common written statement admitting that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, to look after the suit schedule property and to sell the suit schedule property and he also executed a sale agreement in favour of defendant No.1 on 28.01.1994 and defendant No.1 paid the entire sale consideration amount. The plaintiff‘s wife and children also executed an agreement of sale on 21.08.1994 and received Rs. 2,00,000/- through a cheque and cash, and they also executed another agreement on 16.04.1994 and received Rs. 1,40,000/-. After the execution of registered General Power of Attorney and the sale agreements, defendant No.1 had got a legal right on the suit schedule property.

8. Defendant No.1 sold the property in favour of defendant No.2 in 1996 as a general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 in turn sold the suit schedule property in 2001 in favour of defendant No.3 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, and the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 for more than 12 years. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

9. It is also contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the bona fide purchasers for a value with