The court upheld the principle that a power of attorney ceases upon the death of the principal, rendering subsequent transactions invalid.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17^th October, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.549 of 2015 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayanapatna) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09^th November, 2015 passed in Original Suit No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, one C.V. Suryanarayana Rao was the owner of the suit schedule property having been granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Rehabilitation), Hassan. It is stated that the said C.V. Suryanarayana Rao and his son C.S. Srinivasa Rao were enjoying the suit scheduled property. The said C.V. Suryanarayana Rao and C.S. Srinivasa Rao have sold an extent of 2 acre 6 guntas acres of land each in favour of the defendant No.2 as well as one Smt. Thopamma as per the registered Sale Deeds dated 28^th March, 1983. It is further stated that, the above said sale made in favour of the defendant No.2 and Smt. Thopamma as per the registered Sale Deeds dated 28^th March, 1983 was in violation of the scheme of grant by the Government. It is also stated that the defendant No.2 filed R.A.No.40/1985-86, Smt. Thopamma had filed R.A.No.120/1984-85 and further the said C.V. Suryanarayana Rao preferred appeal in R.A. No.12/1984- 85 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Hassan.

4. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 and the said Smt. Thopamma had executed the return Sale Deed in favour of C.V. Suryanarayana Rao and C.S. Srinivasa Rao as per the sale deeds dated 04^th July, 1985.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the said C.V. Suryanarayana Rao and C.S. Srinivasa Rao had executed the unregistered Power of Attorney dated 09^th July, 1996 in favour of the defendant No.1. On the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the mutation entries changed in favour of the defendant No.1. It is also stated that, C.V. Suryanarayana Rao died on 03^rd February, 1997 and C.S. Srinivasa Rao died on 04^th July, 2006. The plaintiffs being the Class-1 heirs of the deceased C.V. Suryanarayana Rao and C.S. Srinivasa Rao have stated in the plaint that, they have succeeded to the estate of the suit schedule property in view of the death of C.V. Suryanarayana Rao and C.S. Srinivasa Rao. It is also stated that, the plaintiffs have executed registered General Power of Attorney dated 31^st August, 2008 in favour of one Jagadeesha. In the meanwhile, the revenue proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan based on the Gift Deed dated 04^th August, 2008 said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 and in turn the defendant No.2 has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 02^nd May, 2009. Hence, plaintiffs have preferred the instant suit before the Trial Court, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

6. Upon service of notice, defendants entered appearance. Defendant No.1 filed detailed written statement and took-up a specific contention that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property based on the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by C.V. Suryanarayana Rao a