REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2006 OF 2006

NANJEGOWDA & ANR.

Appellant(s)

Versus

GANGAMMA & Ors.

Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRMAULI KR.PRASAD,J.

1.

Defendant No.1 Nanjegowda and his wife defendant

No.3 Jayamma are before us by special leave against

the judgment and decree of affirmance.

2.

Plaintiff No.1 Gangamma is the wife of late

Honnanna. Plaintiff no.2 Vanajakshi is the daughter

of plaintiff no.1, whereas plaintiff no.3 Nagesha and

defendant no.2 Manjunatha are her sons. Plaintiffs

filed the suit for declaration and possession over an

area measuring East to West 50 feet and North to

South 15 feet with a house built thereon measuring

15x12 feet, appertaining to survey No. 70/19,

situated

at

Kamakshipalya,Saneguruvanahalli,

Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in the

State of Karnataka.

3.

According to the plaintiffs, the property

originally belonged to one Ramakrishna. He had

purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated

13^th December, 1978. The aforesaid Ramakrishna sold

the said property to Honnanna by a registered sale

deed dated 5^th June, 1980. According to the

plaintiffs, Honnanna executed the power of attorney

in respect of the suit property in favour of

defendant nos.1 and 3 which came to an end on his

death on 13^th July, 1986. Defendant nos.1 and 3

hereinafter referred to as the defendants (appellants

herein) contested the suit. They have not denied

that Honnanna had purchased the property on 5^th June,

1980 from Ramakrishna. However, they claim title

over the property on the basis of an agreement to

sale dated 27^th November, 1982. It is further case of

the defendants that there being a ban on registry of

2

the property, an irrevocable power of attorney was

executed by Honnanna on 14^th July, 1985 as also an

affidavit of the same date.

4.

On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the

Trial Court framed various issues including the issue

as to whether defendant nos. 1 and 3 had acquired

title to the property after the death of Honnanna.

The Trial Court on appraisal of evidence, came to the

conclusion that defendants had failed to prove that

Honnanna executed an agreement to sale in favour of

defendant no.3 Jayamma. The Trial Court further held

that plea of the defendants that Honnanna delivered

possession of the scheduled property in the light of

the agreement dated 27^th November, 1982 on the date of

agreement is false. In coming to the aforesaid

conclusion, the Trial Court referred to the contents

of the general power of attorney which indicated that

Honnanna had given the general power of attorney in

favour of Jayamma to manage the property. While

doing so, the Trial Court observed as follows:

3

“48……….what can be made from these

recitals is that Honnanna was in

possession of the schedule property upto

the date of execution of said general

power of attorney i.e. 22.7.1985. That

being so, the contention of defendants 1

and 3 that Honnanna delivered portion of

the schedule property referred to in the

agreement of sale dated 27.11.1982 on the

alleged date of agreement of sale is

found to be false…..”

5.

In the light of the aforesaid findings, the Trial

Court decreed the suit and on appeal by the

defendants, the High Court had dismissed the appeal

and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court.

6.

Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that

Honnanna executed an agreement to sale in favour of

defendant no.3 Jayamma and she was put in possession.

According to him, after the execution of the

agreement to sale, the ban on the registration of the

documents was not lifted and accordingly Honnanna

executed an irrevocable power of at