Allegations of fraud in property transfers must be substantiated with specific, credible evidence; failing which claims may be dismissed.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.2146/2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.2). By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.1987 said to have been executed in favour of defendant No.1 is a fabricated and bogus document and is not binding on them. The plaintiffs had further sought a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.1987 executed by defendant No.1, acting as GPA holder, in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void, not binding on their rights, and liable to be cancelled. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs are before this Court in the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in terms of their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit are as follows:

The plaintiffs, asserting themselves to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, instituted O.S.No.2146/2004 seeking the following reliefs:

4. The plaintiffs have pleaded that plaintiff No.1 derived title to the suit schedule property through his mother, late Smt. Saraswathi Bai, under a Will dated 24.04.1980. It is their specific case that though plaintiff No.1 became the beneficiary under the said Will, the bequest conferred upon him only a limited or life interest and that, upon his demise, the property was to devolve upon his two sons in terms of the testamentary disposition. The plaintiffs have further averred that they had no knowledge of any alienation until 18.08.2001, when defendant No.2 is stated to have produced a registered General Power of Attorney before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bengaluru City Corporation. According to the plaintiffs, it was only at that juncture that they came to know of the alleged fabrication of the General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.1987 and the consequent registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.1987 said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. They contend that the said documents were brought into existence in collusion between defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs have also asserted that they executed a Deed of Revocation cancelling the alleged Power of Attorney. Alleging further that defendant No.3 had trespassed upon the suit schedule property without their consent or authority, the present suit came to be instituted.

5. Upon service of summons, defendant No.2 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, denying the plaint averments in toto. Defendant No.2, on the contrary, asserted that plaintiff No.1, having acquired the property under the Will dated 24.04.1980, had voluntarily executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.1987 in favour of defendant No.1, authorising him to deal with and alienate the suit property. It was contended that defendant No.1, acting as a duly constituted attorney of plaintiff No.1, executed a registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.1987 in favour of defendant No.2, thereby conveying valid right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. On these grounds, defendant No.2 sought dismissal of the suit.

6. In view of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for determination and the parties were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims.

7. In support