Unregistered agreements and powers of attorney do not confer legal title or possession; valid title and identification of property are essential to establish claims in injunction suits.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.1762/2006 wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter is dismissed. The plaintiff is in appeal.

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

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction simpliciter against the defendants in respect of a site measuring 50 feet × 60 feet, totally measuring 2.75 guntas, situated in Survey No.22/3 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she purchased the suit schedule property from Smt. Nanjamma, wife of late Billemane Narasimhaiah, along with her son Munikrishna and daughters Hanumakka, Lakshmidevi and Savithrama, under an agreement-cum-sale dated 26.12.1988.

4. The plaintiff has pleaded that owing to the ban on registration of revenue lands prevailing at the relevant point of time, the vendors executed an agreement-cum- sale in her favour. It is further pleaded that the vendors jointly executed an affidavit on 26.04.1989, acknowledging receipt of the full sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, and on the very same day, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further asserts that the land bearing Survey No.22/3 measures 33 guntas, and that after partition, the vendors formed a layout therein. Alleging that the defendants, who according to her have no semblance of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with her possession in February 2006, the present suit came to be filed.

5. The defendants, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. On the contrary, the defendants asserted that they are the absolute owners in possession of Site No.56, bearing corresponding Municipal Khatha No.76/1, situated at Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli. It is their specific case that they purchased the said site from their vendor under registered sale deeds dated 20.11.1990 and 02.01.1991. The defendants contended that their vendor is a Housing Society, which had acquired a vast extent of land in Valagerahalli Village, formed a residential layout and allotted sites to its members. Relying upon registered documents, khatha entries and specific boundaries reflected in the sale deeds, the defendants asserted lawful title and possession over the property.

6. The defendants further contended that the suit site claimed by the plaintiff is fictitious and that under the guise of a bare suit for injunction, the plaintiff is attempting to encroach upon Site Nos.56, 57 and 58 belonging to the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff’s claim is founded solely on a General Power of Attorney and other unenforceable documents, and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. Both the plaintiff and the defendants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon appreciation of the entire material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish either lawful title or possession over the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 206 , held t