R.GANESHAN Vs. BHARATH JAGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.837/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the order dtd. 14/12/2022 by which, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC was allowed and the defendant No.1 was restrained from alienating, encumbering or transferring the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.837/2021 was filed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The suit was filed in respect of 8 sites bearing Nos.1805/B5/MIG, 39/B4/HIF-I, 342/B4/HIG-II, 343/B4/HIG- II, 65/B4/HIG-II, 1804/B5/MIG, 341/B4/HIG-II and 1681/B5/HIG-I situate at Suryanagara, 3rd Phase, Jigala village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit schedule properties and several other properties and was a resident of Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff claimed that as the defendant No.1 could not manage his properties, he executed a power of attorney dtd. 2/3/1998 in favour of father of the plaintiff to manage and to deal with the properties in the manner he felt fit. Consequent to the power of attorney, the father of the plaintiff was managing and looking after the properties and he converted several survey numbers for non- agricultural purposes. After the execution of the general power of attorney, the father of the plaintiff had converted the lands into residential sites and sold it to different persons based on the power of attorney. The plaintiff claimed that his father died on 12/8/2007. Then defendant No.1 executed a power of attorney dtd. 18/12/2007 in favour of plaintiff, which was duly registered in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.24/3, 27, 25/P, in all measuring 7 acres 13 guntas at Jigala village and Sy.No.21/4, 191/6, 191/4, 191/3 and 184/3C, 184/3DP, 184/3D, 184/3D, 184/3D and 158, in all measuring 14 acres 13 guntas of Yadavanahalli village. He contended that the power of attorney dtd. 18/12/2007 was irrevocable as it was baked with consideration paid. The plaintiff claimed that the Karnataka Housing Board proposed to acquire the land in Sy.No.25 for the purposes of developing a township named, "Surya City". The plaintiff claimed that several correspondences ensued for the deletion of the properties from the acquisition and in view of the policy decision taken by the Board, the defendant No.1 was entitled to 40% of the developed land. The plaintiff claimed that the Karnataka Housing Board had proposed to allot 10 sites to the defendant No.1 and in respect of 10 sites, the plaintiff had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the defendant No.1 whereunder, he paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00. Subsequent thereto, plaintiffs entered into agreements of sale in favour of eight purchasers and paid a sum of Rs.66,50,000.00 to the defendant No.1. Thus, in all the plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 had received a sum of Rs.68,00,000.00. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No.1 thereafter indirectly attempted to interfere with 10 sites and claimed that those 10 sites would be directly allotted to him. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 was trying to short circuit the agreement holders who purchased 8 sites from the plaintiff as the power of attorney of the defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff was advised to file a suit in O.S.No.18/2021 for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant No.1 had cancelled the power of attorney dtd. 18/12/2007 by a document dtd. 6/3/2020, which was registered on 27/4/2020. The plaintiff therefore, filed the present suit for the aforesaid reliefs.