Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—Defendant No.1 Nanjegowda and his wife defendant No.3 Jayamma are before us by special leave against the judgment and decree of affirmance.

2. Plaintiff No.1 Gangamma is the wife of late Honnanna. Plaintiff no. 2 Vanajakshi is the daughter of plaintiff no.l, whereas plaintiff no.3 Nagesha and defendant no. 2 Manjunatha are her sons. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and possession over an area measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 15 feet with a house-built thereon measuring 15 x 12 feet, appertaining to survey No. 70/19, situated at Kamakshipalya, Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in the State of Karnataka.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to one Ramakrishna.He had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13th December, 1978. The aforesaid Ramakrishna sold the said property to Honnanna by a registered sale deed dated 5th June, 1980. According to the plaintiffs, Honnanna executed the power of attorney in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 3 which came to an end on his death on 13th July, 1986. Defendant nos.1 and 3 hereinafter referred to as the defendants (appellants herein) contested the suit. They have not denied that Honnanna had purchased the property on 5th June, 1980 from Ramakrishna. However, they claim title over the property on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 27th November, 1982. It is further case of the defendants that there being a ban on registry of the property, an irrevocable power of attorney was executed by Honnanna on 14th July, 1985 as also an affidavit of the same date.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the Trial Court framed various issues including the issue as to whether defendant nos. 1 and 3 had acquired title to the property after the death of Honnanna. The Trial Court on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that defendants had failed to prove that Honnanna executed an agreement to sale in favour of defendant no.3 Jayamma. The Trial Court further held that plea of the defendants that Honnanna delivered possession of the scheduled property in the light of the agreement dated 27th November, 1982 on the date of agreement is false. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Trial Court referred to the contents of the general power of attorney which indicated that Honnanna had given the general power of attorney in favour of Jayamma to manage the property. While doing so, the Trial Court observed as follows :

“48 what can be made from these recitals is that Honnanna was in possession of the schedule property upto the date of execution of said general power of attorney i.e. 22.7.1985. That being so, the contention of defendants 1 and 3 that Honnanna delivered portion of the schedule property referred to in the agreement of sale dated 27.11.1982 on the alleged date of agreement of sale is found to be false ..... “

5. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal by the defendants, the High Court had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

6. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that Honnanna executed an agreement to sale in favour of defendant no.3 Jayamma and she was put in possession. According to him, after the execution of the agreement to sale, the ban on the registration of the documents was not lifted and accordingly Honnanna executed an irrevocable power of attorney and sworn affidavit, acknowledging possession on 14th July, 1985. He draws our attention to the agreement to sale (Ext. D-1) dated 27th November, 1982 and the affidavit dated 14th July, 1985 (Ext. D-3) and contends that Honnanna having delivered the possession of the property, notwithstanding the fact that sale deed has not been executed and registered, defendants shall have right over the property. In this connec