General Power of Attorney ceases upon the death of the principal, invalidating any subsequent sale deeds executed without the consent of all necessary parties.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present regular first appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2022 passed in O.S No.7157/2012 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26) (‘the Trial Court for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court, partly decreed the suit, by declaring the plaintiff as lawful owner under the registered sale deed dated 26.09.2008 and directed delivery of vacant possession, while dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

Plaint averments:

2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Site No.11, Survey No.1, Block No.56 of Jarakabandikaval Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (herein referred to as the ‘suit property’ for short). It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was originally a gomal land granted by the Government of Mysore in 1969 to Smt. Venkatamma. She alienated 50 guntas in favour of K. Shanmugam, K. Kadiravelu and K. Thangavelu by registered sale deed dated 02.08.1980. Further, the purchasers formed sites, through GPA and affidavit dated 10.01.1984 site No.11 was put in possession of Smt. Lakshmamma. Later, the plaintiff agreed to purchase directly from the surviving owners i.e., K. Thangavelu and Smt. Vijaya, wife of late K. Kadiravelu and they executed a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2008 in plaintiff’s favour with Anandakumar (son of K. Kadiravelu) and Lakshmama, as consenting witnesses. It is stated that on the strength of the sale deed, the plaintiff is a lawful owner and in possession. The defendants, without any right or title, claimed under a sale deed dated 29.07.2008 executed by their mother Ramarathnamma @ Hemaratnamma as GPA holder. By that time, the two GPA executants (Shanmugam and K. Kadiravelu) had already died extinguishing the authority. Further, the earlier suit O.S. No.7591/2008 for permanent injunction which was decreed, the Court held that their possession was only settled possession ‘liable to be evicted through due process’ and hence, the plaintiff sought for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

Written statement averments:

3. The defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership and possession. They admitted that the original grant in favour of Venkatamma and sale of 50 guntas in favour of K. Shanmugam, K. Kadiravelu and K. Thangavelu, but denied plaintiff's chain of transaction. They claimed that their mother Ramarathnamma was a valid GPA holder dated 16.12.1983 executed by the three owners. On that basis, she executed the sale deed dated 29.07.2008 in their favour. It is contended that they are absolute owners in possession and that the plaintiff’s sale deed is invalid because the said sale deed was not executed by all the legal heirs. Further, the GPA holder Lakshmamma had no valid authority to transfer. The defendants pleaded adverse possession, claiming continuous and uninterrupted possession since their purchase.

4. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, observed that the plaintiff has proved ownership, the defendants did not prove title, GPA of 1983-Ex.D3 lost force on death of the executants, their mother had no right to sell in the year 2008 and the defendants’ possession was recognized as a settled possession under the earlier suit. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession. The injunction claimed was rejected, as there was no evidence of an alienation attempt. Since the defendants raised adverse possession, the burden was on them and they failed to establish that they were in continuous possession adverse to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The suit was partly decreed and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner under the registered sale deed dated 26.09.2008, defendants were directed to deliver vacant possession within two months, failing which the plaintiff may recover possession through Court process. Relief of permanent injunction