N.VENKATESH Vs. ANURADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 28/4/2018 passed in O.S.No.1286/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment and order dtd. 17/3/2023 passed in R.A.No.5027/2018 on the file of III Additional District and Session Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

(2.) The above suit is filed by plaintiffs for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs claimed to be the wife and children of one Gopala Krishna, who was the owner of the suit schedule property. It is their case that said Gopala Krishna during his lifetime was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he passed away on 1/12/1998. Upon his demise, plaintiffs being his Class-I heirs succeeded to the suit schedule property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. That revenue records having been mutated in the name of plaintiff No.1. That the defendant No.1 having no manner of right, title and interest muschless possession over the suit schedule property had created General Power of Attorney (GPA) as if the same having been executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. On the basis of the said General Power of Attorney defendant No.1 had executed deed of sale dtd. 12/7/2005 in favour defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the brothers of defendant No.1. That defendants in collusion playing fraud on the plaintiffs have created said General Power of Attorney and deed of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. Based on the said documents they are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) Defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. They admitted that suit schedule property originally belonged to Gopala Krishna who was the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that said Gopala Krishna during his lifetime had executed an agreement of sale date 8/4/1998 in favour of defendant No.1 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.30,000.00 and had even received Rs.25,000.00 as advance sale consideration. That after the death of said Gopala Krishna defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff No.1 as the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property have been mutated in her name and had requested her to execute the sale deed in his favour in terms of the agreement of sale dtd. 8/4/1998 executed by her husband. As there was inconvenience to the plaintiff No.1 to execute the deed of sale, she had executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to deal with the suit schedule property. As such in furtherance to the said General Power of Attorney defendant No.1 executed deed of sale conveying the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 for valuable sale consideration. It is further contended that deceased Gopala Krishna had delivered the possession of the suit schedule property under the agreement of sale dtd. 8/4/1998 to the defendant No.1 and after execution of the deed of sale, defendant No.1 in turn delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.