The validity of property transfers hinges on adherence to power of attorney laws and timely contestation by legal heirs, affirming prior ownership claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgement and decree dated 01.09.2016 passed in RA.No.43/2013 by the IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru and the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.508/2008 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. Appellants were the plaintiffs, respondents were the defendants.

3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the plaintiffs' case that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the late Ramakrishnaiah, who purchased the suit property in 1930 under the registered sale deed from his vendor, Hyder Shariff. Ramakrishnaiah died in 1955, leaving behind his wife Puttamma and 3 sons, namely, Ramu, Chikkarama and Chinnaraju. They died leaving defendants No.1 to 8, as their legal heirs. Defendants No.1 to 8 became the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants No.1, 2, 4 to 8 are the grand children and defendant No.3 is the daughter-in-law, of late Ramakrishnaiah. Defendant Nos.1 to 8 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2005 for valuable consideration.

4. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 claimed that the suit schedule property belonged to her, and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and 9 started interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 8, in collusion with 9^th defendant are trying to disposses the plaintiffs from suit property. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, they pray to decree the suit

5. The trial Court issued summons. Despite service of notice, the defendants No.1 to 8 remained unrepresented, and they were placed ex-parte.

6. Defendant No.9 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that earlier, the suit property belonged to defendants No.1 to 8 and on 22.04.1992, they jointly executed a GPA in favour of one V.M.Rajamanikyam, the husband of defendant No.9. It is further contended that said GPA holder sold suit property in favour of defendant No.9 under the registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004. Hence, Defendant No.9 is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.9 has filed a suit in O.S.No.45/2005 against defendants No.1 to 8 and obtained the order of temporary injunction.

7. Defendant No.9 filed an additional written statement stating that her husband died in the month of November 2009. It is contended that the power of attorney executed by defendants No.1 to 8 in favour of the husband of defendant No.9, was not cancelled or revoked by defendant Nos.1 to 8, till today. The plaintiffs created the sale deed to deprive the right of defendant No.9. It is contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as sought in the plaint. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

8. Plaintiffs filed a rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by defendant No.9 and denied the contentions and the averments in the additional written statement.

9. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of Registered Sale