C.H.RAJESHWARI Vs. G.KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 by allowing of I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Sec. 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by restraining the defendant Nos.5 and 6 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and also alienating the suit schedule property to anyone.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the property originally belongs to one K.Thimmaiah and the said property bearing site No.72 was carved out of Sy.No.68. The original owner K.Thimmaiah had executed the registered power of attorney on 10/6/1996 in favour of one Ramamani. The said Ramamani had executed the sale deed in favour of her husband i.e., the plaintiff on 30/7/2010. It is also the case of the plaintiff that there is a mistake in mentioning the description of the boundaries, hence, Rectification Deed was also executed on 18/6/2019. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since from the date of execution of the power of attorney, the power of attorney holder has been given in possession and the said GPA is the registered document and the same are irrecoverable GPA. When the possession was delivered in favour of the power of attorney holder, the power of attorney holder in turn executed the sale deed in favour of her husband i.e., the plaintiff . Hence, the said document clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession of his property. Based on the title of the power of attorney, sale deed and rectification deed the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration since the sale deed was created on 15/5/2019 by defendant Nos.3 and 4 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 that is the appellants herein. Thus, very execution of the sale deed dtd. 15/5/2019 is null and void and the same will not convey any title in favour of the defendant Nos.5 and 6. The plaintiff also filed the application inter alia seeking the relief of temporary injunction from interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit schedule property in terms of I.A.No.1. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties and also considering the material available on record comes to the conclusion that original owner has executed the registered power of attorney hence, the same is irrecoverable power of attorneys which coupled with the interest. The power of attorney holder had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession of his suit schedule property and granted the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.