Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
SMT. S.SAVITHRAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SMT.S.PADMAVATHAMMA – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1759 OF 2020 | O.S.No.2653/2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.G. Raghavan, Shreeram T. Nayak
For the Respondents: V.N Shankar Gowda, Murali B.D., N.K. Ramesh, Prakash B.N.
The validity of a power of attorney is presumed under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act unless effectively rebutted, and cancellation of such authority must be duly communicated to be enforceable against third parties.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 85 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 208 - Partition and separate possession - Appeal against dismissal of suit for partition of property inherited under a will - The trial court upheld the validity of general power of attorney executed by the appellant and found that the appellant failed to prove fraud or non-execution - The court ruled that the cancellation of the power of attorney was ineffective against third parties due to lack of proper notice - The appellant's claims were found to be time-barred and legally unsustainable. (Paras 1, 49, 50)
(B) Burden of Proof - The court asserted that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging the execution of documents to establish their validity, especially in cases involving powers of attorney and sale deeds. (Paras 41, 42)
(C) Validity of Transactions - The court confirmed that transactions executed under the power of attorney were legally valid and binding, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of validity under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Paras 49, 50)
(D) Notice of Cancellation - The trial court found that the appellant did not effectively communicate the cancellation of the power of attorney, rendering subsequent transactions valid. (Paras 49, 50) (E) Result - Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. trial court's findings on issues framed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. court's analysis of legal standards and evidence. (Para 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 5. conclusion on validity of gpas and dismissal of appeal. (Para 49 , 50) |
| 6. final order of the court. (Para 51) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
The appellant Smt. S. Savitharamma has preferred this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC , being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2020 passed in O.S.No. 2653/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri K.G. Raghavan representing the learned counsel Sri Shreeram T Nayak for the appellant / plaintiff. Further, we have heard the learned counsel Sri V.N Shankar Gowda and Learned counsel Sri Murali B.D. representing Respondent No.1; learned counsel Shri N.K. Ramesh who is representing Respondent nos.9 to 12 and Shri Prakash B.N. representing Respondent nos. 7 (A) and (C ) and Respondent No.8. Respondent Nos. 2, 5(A), 5(B) and 11 remain absent and unrepresented.
3. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal are as under:
The present appeal arises from a dispute regarding the ownership and sale of land bearing Survey No. 50/4, measuring 6 acres 16 guntas, located in Yadavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The property originally belonged to late Y. Subbarao, who purchased it under a registered sale deed in the year 1948-49. On February 15, 1973, he executed a Will, bequeathing the property to his daughters, Smt. Savithramma / Appellant herein, and Smt. Padmavathamma / Respondent No.1 herein, each receiving a 3-acre share. Upon his death, both sisters inherited the property under the terms of the Will. The property was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use on March 18, 1989, under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
4. On January 20, 1995, the Appellant herein / Savithramma executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of her sister-in-law, Smt. S. Nagarathnamma / Respondent No.5, granting her authority, including the power to sell her portion of the share measuring 3 acres. On September 13, 1995, the Appellant herein / Savithramma also executed a notarized but unregistered GPA in favour of Respondent No.6 / Nazeer Ahmed, in respect of her undivided share in the 6-acre land. On the same day, Respondent No.1 / Padmavathamma, similarly executed a GPA in favour of Nazeer Ahmed for her undivided share in the 6 acre land.
5. Simultaneously, the Appellant and the first Respondent entered into separate agreements, to sell their respective shares. The Appellant agreed to sell her share to one R.K. Govindaraj for a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-, while the first Respondent agreed to sell her share to one R. Ashok Kumar for the same price, also receiving Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Over the next two years, both the Appellant and Respondent No.1 received additional payments. On September 14, 1995, each received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as further advance, followed by the Appellant receiving Rs.20,00,000/- on March 10, 1997. Respondent No.1 received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on March 5, 1996, and an additional sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on June 8, 1997. On September 15, 1996, the agreement holders, R.K. Govindaraj and R. Ashok Kumar, nominated N.R. Ramesh as their nominee to purchase the land through a Deed of Nomination.
6. On September 21, 2002, Respondent No.6, acting as the power of attorney holder, executed two sale deeds: one for 2 acres in favour of Respondent No.8 and another 2 acres in favour of deceased Respondent No.7. Subsequently, on Octobe
