SUBHADRA Vs. M NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS 2074/2003 on 5.8.2010.

(2.) Suit property is a part and parcel of the site said to have been allotted to the plaintiff by the Bangalore Development Authority in No.77, III Block, I] Stage, RMV Extension, Bangalore. It is alleged by the plaintiff, having taken his signature and having created fraudulent documents by way of general power of attorney, the 1st defendant who is the wife of the 2nd defendant and sister in law of the plaintiff, got transferred the property in favour of the 2nd defendant. Though the transaction was not one for sale of immovable property nonetheless, the 1st defendant misusing the signatures, has got executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. Stating that it is an illegal transaction and without knowledge of the plaintiff, and the power of attorney is illegal, plaintiff sought for a declaration to declare the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on 25.4.2001 as illegal.

(3.) Matter was contested by the defendants. While admitting the relationship between the parties, it is stated, plaintiff was in a financial crisis, therefore he had offered to sell the northern portion of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.29,000/-. The 1st defendant having agreed for the same, paid the entire consideration and in lieu of the same, plaintiff executed a power of attorney based on which, the 1st defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, who put up construction. What is not in dispute is, it is a lease cum sale by the BDA in favour of the plaintiff for a period of ten years and only thereafter, the sale deed could be executed. The defendants have denied the putting up of construction by the plaintiff while also denying the stand of the plaintiff that he has only received the money and not agreed to sell the property.