The court affirmed the trial Court's ruling that a General Power of Attorney was fraudulent and the subsequent sale deed was invalid, emphasizing the burden of proof on the defendants to establish authenticity.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned appeal is filed by defendant No.3/pendente lite purchaser, who is aggrieved by the decree granted by trial Court thereby, declaring General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA') dated 04.02.1990 alleged to have been executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 as false, created document and not binding on the plaintiff. Consequently, the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 based on GPA dated 04.02.1990 is also declared as null, void and not binding on the plaintiff. The consequential relief of injunction is granted thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the portion of the suit schedule property measuring 1-Acre 27-Guntas.

2. For the sake of brevity, the ranking of the parties is referred to as trial Court’s ranking.

3. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff asserts that he came in contact with defendant No.2 and at his instance, the plaintiff was compelled to execute a GPA on an assurance given by defendant No.2 that he would get the land converted. The plaintiff therefore contends that on an assurance, he purchased the present suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 18.02.1988 to which defendant No.2 and one Anjaneya stood as witnesses. Since defendant No.2 assured that he would get the land convert, plaintiff executed a GPA and handed over all original title deeds. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No.2 kept on promise that he will get the land converted and return the title deeds. The plaintiff further pleads that in the year 1990, defendant No.2 on enquiry informed the plaintiff that he has lost original title deeds and they are not traceable. It was only in the year 2009- 2010 when the plaintiff obtained records of rights relating to the suit schedule property, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2 has misused the alleged GPA dated 04.02.1990 by creating the same and in turn has sold the property to his own wife, who is defendant No.1. Therefore, the present suit is seeking declaration to declare the sale deed dated 08.09.2008 obtained on the strength of GPA as ab initio, null, void, false and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. On receipts of summons, defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statements separately. Defendant No.3, who is a pendente lite purchaser also filed his separate written statement.

5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement strongly denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 on the contrary contends that plaintiff did execute GPA on 04.02.1990 and based on the said GPA, his wife-defendant No.1, who is an agriculturist agreed to purchase the property and defendant No.2 as Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff, has sold the property for valuable sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and plaintiff has received the entire sale consideration amount through defendant No.2.

6. Defendant No.2 also filed written statement and contends that there was a proper authorization particularly GPA dated 04.02.1990, he has executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 contends that plaintiff was paid the amount periodically to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 at the time of execution of sale deed. Therefore, defendant No.2 contends that there is no cause of action and sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and claims to be the bona-fide purchaser for valuable sale consideration. Defendant No.3 contended that defendant No.1 has sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 to an extent of 39 guntas under registered sale deed dated 25.10.2010 and hence, he claims to be a absolute owner. Defendant No.3 therefore contended that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief and sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their res