IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2012 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. S. HEMANTHA RAO S/O SHIVAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.16/1, 8^TH CROSS DASARAHALLI MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-560 079.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. H. INBAVALLI W/O K. HARIKRISHNAN Digitally AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS signed by AL BHAGYA Location: 2. H. RAVINCHANDRAN HIGH COURT S/O K. HARIKRISHNAN OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

3. SHANKAR .H S/O K. HARIKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MATADAHALLI FURTHER EXTN., 1^ST CROSS R T NAGAR, BANGALORE-32.

4. S. RAGHAVNEDRA S/O S. SRINIVAS MAJOR

5^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040.

5. S. SAKKUBAI W/O H.M. SHIVALINGAIAH MAJOR NO.1025/A, 12^TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

6. SAMPATH RAJ S/O JAITMALGI MAJOR NO.45, MAHAJAN PROVISION STORE VENKU SAHOJI LANE CROSS CHICKKAPETE, BANGALORE-53.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. JAVAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 - R3 V/O/DATED: 01.07.2016 APPEAL AGAINST R4 & R6 DISMISSED)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.4459/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-44, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is preferred by defendant No.4, calling in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.4459/2003, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiffs has been decreed and defendant Nos.1 to 4 have been directed to hand over vacant possession of Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘C’ properties to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted suit in O.S.No.4459/2003 asserting right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties through defendant No.2. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one G. Kempaiah, who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the said original owner executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 15.01.1982 in favour of defendant No.3, authorising him to deal with and alienate the suit schedule properties.

4. It is the further specific case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.3, acting under the authority conferred by the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, executed another General Power of Attorney dated 02.07.1984 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the very same properties, thereby constituting what is described as a sub-agency. On the strength of this subsequent General Power of Attorney, the plaintiffs claim to have derived right and title over the suit schedule properties.

5. Thus, the entire foundation of the plaintiffs’

claim rests upon two documents, namely: (i) the original General Power of Attorney dated 15.01.1982 allegedly executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.3; and (ii) the subsequent General Power of Attorney dated

02.07.1984 said to have been executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2, through whom the plaintiffs trace their alleged title.

6. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.1984 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 was not a mere agency simpliciter, but one coupled with interest, inasmuch as defendant No.2 is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property. On that premise, it was contended that the said power of attorney created an enforceable and irrevocable interest in favour of defendant No.2.

7. It is also their case t