The court established that the General Power of Attorney was fictitious and the sale deed executed under it was null and void, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the defendants under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 85 - Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - General Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2005 held null and void - Plaintiff established that the GPA was fictitious, fabricated, and not executed properly. The sale deed based on this power of attorney was declared non est in law. (Paras 6, 10, 18)

(B) Burden of Proof - The court emphasized that the burden of proving the genuineness of the General Power of Attorney lies with the defendants, not the plaintiff, contradicting the presumption under Section 85. (Paras 9, 14)

(C) Court Fee Valuation - The court affirmed the plaintiff's payment of court fees as adequate for the relief sought, dismissing the appellants' claim of insufficiency. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased property via a registered sale deed; she alleged coercion and harassment by Defendant No.1 and stated that the General Power of Attorney was fabricated to unlawfully transfer ownership of her property to Defendant No.4.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, declaring both the GPA and the sale deed null and void.

Issues: Whether the GPA was fictitious and whether the deed executed based on that GPA was legally valid?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants failed to prove the legitimacy of the GPA and supported the plaintiff's claim of coercion and illegitimacy of the sale.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case involving property ownership dispute. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. issues framed for trial consideration. (Para 6)
3. defendants' arguments regarding evidence and court fees. (Para 9 , 10)
4. evaluation of evidence and claims about the power of attorney. (Para 11 , 12 , 15)
5. findings related to the authenticity of signatures and documents. (Para 13 , 14 , 17)
6. conclusion of the appeal and dismissal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant Nos.1 and 4 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2013 in O.S.No.16934/2006 on the file of 28^th Addl. City Civil Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding that the General Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2005 is null and void.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 09.04.2004 from one Sri. K. Bhaskaran and Smt. Rashmi, and since thereafter, the revenue record stands in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the plaintiff was working as a Receptionist in the transport company, namely Deluxe Roadlines belonging to defendant No.1. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant No.1 was harassing the plaintiff sexually and was trying to molest the plaintiff on several occasions when she was working with the defendant No.1. It is also stated that the plaintiff had protested the illegal acts of defendant No.1. It is also stated that the plaintiff had come to the conclusion to resign from the job and as such expressed the same to defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 pressurized the plaintiff to put her signature on blank papers for which the plaintiff refused and thereafter, the defendant No.1 flashed a loaded pistol on the face of the plaintiff and abused the plaintiff in filthy language and also threatened the plaintiff to kill her if she refused to put her signature on the blank sheets. At that juncture, the plaintiff, in order to escape from defendant No.1, put her signature on certain blank sheets. It is also stated that the plaintiff has not revealed the same to her parents fearing that defendant No.1 may kill her and her family members. It is also stated in the plaint that defendant No.2 is a representative of the financial company and used to visit the office of defendant No.1. The defendant No.2, at the instance of defendant No.1, insisted the plaintiff to deliver the original property title documents for scrutiny and the plaintiff has handed over the original property papers to defendant No.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendant No.2 to return the documents for which the defendant No.2 threatened the plaintiff to face dire consequences. It is also stated that on 16.03.2006, the defendant No.2 along with some goonda elements visited the house of the plaintiff and ransacked the window grills and name board affixed in the front portion of the house. The defendant No.2 assaulted the father of the plaintiff and directed the parents of the plaintiff to vacate the suit property. Pursuant to the same, father of the plaintiff has lodged a complaint before the Subramanyapura Police and as such, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No.2542/2006 seeking relief of permanent injunction.

4. It is further averred in the plaint that, after defendants entered appearance and filed written statement in the earlier suit, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.4 is the owner of the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.2005. The plaintiff was shocked to see that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of defendant No.4 by defendant No.1 based on an unregistered General Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2005 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant