R.GURURAJAN
T. L. NAGENDRA BABU – Appellant
Versus
MANOHAR RAO PAWAR – Respondent
What is the validity and enforceability of a Power-of-Attorney (GPA) in filing a suit and its impact on maintainability? What is the proper scope and adequacy of pleadings, verification, and court-fee in a suit seeking declaration and injunction based on a GPA? What is the appropriate approach to determining identity of the suit property, title, possession, and the grant of injunction when faced with doubtful or insufficient evidence?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
( 1 ) THESE three appeals are disposed of by this common order. All these three appeals arise out of an order passed in O. S. No. 3421/ 2000 dated 8. 2. 2002 by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, bangalore.
( 2 ) R. F. A. No. 386/2002 is filed by Nagendra Babu. Facts" in brief are as under:
One Mr. Manohar Rao Pawar, the plaintiff-respondent filed a plaint in O. S. No, 3421/2000. According to the petition averments, he is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule site. It is a portion of the larger area bearing Corporation No. 10. Properties stood in the name of late Shivaramanand Bharath. The plaintiff purchased the same for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed dated 8. 7. 1987. The defendant is a stranger to the suit property. He has no manner of right, title or interest. He started a school called Kids Convent located at the north-East corner of No. 10 of the Corporation. The suit schedule property/ site and location of the school in No. 10 are shown in the sketch annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff is temporarily outside the country. His G. P. A. holder looks after the property. G. P. A, holder received information that some one is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.