A General Power of Attorney is automatically terminated upon the death of the executant, and any property transfer executed by the agent thereafter is void and invalid in the eyes of law.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2024, PASSED IN O.S.NO.1984/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2024, passed by the XXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the trial Court’), in O.S.No.1984/2022, wherein the suit filed for permanent injunction is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant claiming that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property bearing site No.80, BBMP Khata No.2/3/80, Ittamadu village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.2022, through the General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri G.Rangaswamy - original owner, for a valuable consideration. Therefore, alleging interference by the defendant, the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction.

4. In response to the suit summons served upon her, the defendant entered appearance and filed her written statement, denying the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from one Imanuvelu, who is the General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri G.Rangaswamy. It is further alleged in the written statement that the said Sale Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by playing fraud as the owner - G.Rangaswamy died on 02.03.2012 itself. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that he had purchased the suit property through registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.2022 is not valid in the eye of law.

5. It is further submitted that, defendant had purchased the suit property from one Kirshnappa, through registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.1999 and he is in lawful possession of the same. It is submitted that, alleging interference by one Munivenkata Rao, the defendant had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.4970/2000 for permanent injunction and said Munivenkata Rao had also filed a suit in O.S.No.4572/2000 against the defendant and Krishnappa in respect of suit property. The suit filed by the defendant came to be decreed and the suit filed by Munivenkata Rao was dismissed. Thus, by virtue of the said decree, the defendant has been declared as owner and in possession of the suit property. Therefore, in view of this, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant?

4. What order