BASANNA Vs. NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the defendant under Sec. 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chincholi in O.S.No.142/1990 dtd. 30/11/2002 and confirmed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chincholi in R.A.No.08/2006 dated

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the suit property is a house bearing No.3-79 and 3-80 situated in Sulepeth. The plaintiff's marriage took place with one Tuljappa when she was young and within one year of marriage, Tuljappa died and hence, she was taken by her parents and she began to reside with her parents. The plaintiff's parents died about 30 years back. That, one Mallappa Talwar was paternal grand father of the plaintiff, who had two sons through his wife Iramma namely, Bandappa and Gundappa. The said Gundappa is the father of the plaintiff. That, Bandappa had a wife by name Hashamma. They died issueless. That, Bandappa and his brother Gundappa were residing jointly. That, the defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an illiterate lady and she is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. That, the relatives of the plaintiff's father used to quarrel with the plaintiff threatening her to vacate the house and also threatened her of initiating the proceedings. The plaintiff has approached the defendant seeking his advise and the defendant has secured her confidence and further, in order to look after her problems, he asked her to execute a general power of attorney in his favour. He took the plaintiff to Chincholi and managed to secure the thumb impression in the Tahsil compound on some stamp papers giving an understanding that she was executing a power of attorney. Subsequently, the defendant stopped paying rent and when the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the rent, the defendant denied the payment of rent asserting his title in pursuance of the sale deed. It is alleged that, taking advantage of the good faith and illiteracy of the plaintiff, the defendant has got executed the sale deed under the guise of obtaining power of attorney and she has not sold the suit property. Hence, she filed a suit for declaration and injunction.