IMPORTANT POINT
Signatories to any document can not deny the validity of that document.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J.—R.F.A.No.1135/2013 and R.F.A.No.116/2013 are filed challenging the common judgment and decree dated 24.9.2012 passed in O.S.No.7498/1992 and O.S.No.1611/1994 respectively, on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-28).

2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1611/1994 had filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.1.1989 executed in favour of defendant No.8 Sri Parabjoth Singh and the registered sale deed dated 14.6.1988 executed in favour of defendant No.11 Smt. Shantha Abraham by late Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy through his Power of Attorney Sri A. Jayarama Reddy in respect of portions of plaint schedule ‘A’ property are not binding on them. Further to grant permanent injunction in respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property in portion of site Nos.1 and 2 described in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property against defendant No.8.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1611/1994 are that one Sri Venkataswamy Reddy had two sons, namely Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy and Sri B. V. Krishna Reddy. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy and plaintiff No.3 is the son of Sri B. V. Krishna Reddy. Sri Venkataswamy Reddy passed away prior to 1956. After his death, his two sons and the plaintiffs constituted an undivided Hindu Joint family. Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy was the kartha of the undivided Hindu Family. The said family was having considerable landed property. The kartha of the family Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy had no other income except the joint family landed property. The joint family was owning a land bearing Survey No.119 of Horamavu Village, which is morefully described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint. Till today the same is in joint possession of the plaintiffs.

4. Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy had to borrow funds for the purpose of meeting of joint family necessities. Instead of executing mortgage deeds, the kartha of the family used to execute nominal sale deeds in favour of the creditors. These documents were also known as ‘Nambike Kraya’. Despite execution of such nominal sale deeds, the lands continued in possession of undivided joint Hindu family. The said land came to be transferred from person to person at the direction of kartha and ultimately at a particular point of time, the sale deed in respect of the said land stood in the name of one Sri V. C. Rajarathnam. In the year 1971, the joint family became affluent and it was in a position to repay the said loans that had to be paid to Sri V. C. Rajarathnam. Accordingly, the kartha had paid the same amount of Sri V. C. Rajarathnam in respect of sale deed dated 15.9.1971. Hence, Sri V. C. Rajarathnam had reconveyed the land in favour of kartha. The joint family had also obtained loan from Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., for the purpose of development of agricultural land under a mortgage deed dated 27.9.1976. The land was mortgaged by both brothers in favour of the Bank in respect of Survey No.119. Thus, schedule ‘A’ property continued to be undivided family property. During the lifetime of Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy, he purchased the schedule property on behalf of joint family and hence it is a joint family property. On 23.3.1978, once again both the brothers have mortgaged the said property in favour of P.C.L.D. Bank. On 15.12.1978, Sri B. V. Krishna Reddy died leaving behind plaintiff No.3 as his legal heir. On 6.9.1988, Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy died leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. After the death of Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy and Sri B. V. Krishna Reddy, the plaintiffs are the sole surviving co-parceners of undivided Hindu joint family.

5. It is contended that during the lifetime of Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy, he had formed revenue layouts with the consent of other members in suit schedule ‘A’ property. There was an agreement regarding future partition of the sites in between the co-parceners. The co-parceners had agre