SHIVAKUMAR Vs. NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 2108/2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in dismissing his suit filed seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 01.08.2006 which is registered on 03.08.2006 as document No. BNG(U) YLNK/10107/2006-07 and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with the alleged possession of suit schedule property by the plaintiff and other reliefs which was sought initially and subsequently amended to seek additional prayer of delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property from the second defendant. For the sake of brevity, parties herein are referred to by their rank in the trial court.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under:

(3.) In the said suit, after service of summons, defendants entered appearance and set up a defence to the effect that the suit schedule property was nodoubt the property of the plaintiff, which had fallen to his share in a partition between himself and his brother, plaintiff. It is their case that in the year 1993, plaintiff approached second defendant offering to sell the suit schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and in that behalf he executed two documents, one General Power of Attorney dated 15.02.1993, which he executed in favour of first defendant authorizing her to deal with the property in whatever manner she deems fit to do so and also executed another document in the form of an affidavit, wherein he has received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- for sale of the suit schedule property in favour of second defendant and on the date of execution of General Power of Attorney, he has given an undertaking by way of an affidavit delivering possession of suit schedule property in favour of first defendant and that the Power of Attorney which was executed is irrevocable in nature coupled with the consideration shown in the affidavit, which accompanied the Power of Attorney and as such the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as bona fide purchaser for value and in the said written statement, allegations of misusing the blank documents which is said to have executed by the plaintiff in favour of second defendant were denied.