G L CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. C R ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant, in the suit.

(2.) THE parties are referred to by their rank, before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

(3.) THE first plaintiff was the adopted son of the second plaintiff. The first defendant was the husband of the biological sister of the first plaintiff. The second defendant was the sister of the first plaintiff. The suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration that plaintiff no.1 was the owner of the property described in the Schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff had also sought a declaration that an agreement of sale dated 18.12.1996, said to have been executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and the General Power of Attorney dated 27.2.1998 executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the second defendant, as well as the sale deed dated 25.10.2002, said to have been executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant, was fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought recovery of possession of the suit properties and for damages for use and occupation, of the same, at the rate of Rs.5,500/ - per month. The suit was originally brought by the first plaintiff seeking ejectment of the defendant, on the basis of a gift deed said to have been executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the first plaintiff. As the title of the first plaintiff was disputed by the defendants, the second plaintiff was impleaded. It was the case of the first plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property under a registered gift deed dated 16.2.2004, said to have been executed by the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff is said to have purchased the property from one Jadara Muniyamma, under a registered sale deed dated 12.9.1980. According to the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff is the second wife of one G. Ramaswamy @ Rangaswamappa, who is said to have died on 11.12.1983. One Lakshmidevamma @ Mahalakshmamma was said to be the first wife of Rangaswamy. Rangaswamy is not seen to have had any children of his own, hence plaintiff no.1 is claimed to have been adopted by Rangaswamy. One Radhakrishna C., was said to be the biological father of plaintiff no.1. Radhakrishna was said to be the brother of plaintiff no.2. It is stated that by virtue of the fact that defendant no. 2 was her niece, plaintiff no.2 is said to have permitted her and her husband, defendant no.1, to reside along with her. It is claimed that defendant no.1 was an engineer by profession and since plaintiff no.2 was an illiterate woman, she had placed trust and faith in the defendants in managing her affairs and had entrusted them with her all, including monies and other valuables apart from documents to her immovable properties. There were said to be several court cases pertaining to her immovable properties, which defendant no.1 was following up on her behalf. It is alleged that during the said period, it was the usual practice to obtain the signatures of Plaintiff no.2 on blank papers, on the pretext that the papers were required for preparation of documents to be filed in the pending cases, and she was not in a position to move about freely and in order to save time, signatures were obtained on blank papers to be used later before the court, in those pending cases. It is asserted that plaintiff no.2 had no reason to doubt the bona fides of the defendants. It is also alleged that defendant was also managing the financial affairs of plaintiff no.2 and it was a common practice for him to obtain her signatures on blank cheque leaves. The plaintiffs asserted that the possession of the suit schedule property by the defendants was permissive possession and they could not claim any contractual or other right. It is alleged that since defendant no.2 started claiming that she had been adopted by the late husband of plaintiff no.2, a legal notice is said to have been issued to defendant no.2 and her husband, defendant no.1, to vacate the suit schedule premises. It is said that the defendants had replied to claim that plaintiff no.2 had executed an agreement of sale, dated 18.12.1996 in favour of defendant no.1, agreeing to sell the suit property and had received a sum of Rs.25,000/ - and had put the defendants in possession of the property on the same day. It was also contended that plaintiff no.2 had executed a general power of attorney dated 27.2.1998, in favour of defendant no.2, authorizing her to deal with the suit property. And it was pursuant to the same that a sale deed had been executed by defendant no.2, on behalf of plaintiff no.2, in favour of defendant no.1, as on 25.10.2002. The plaintiffs had vehemently disputed the execution of the agreement of sale and the general power of attorney in favour of the defendants, as claimed above. It was further pointed out that fearing the misuse of blank papers that may have been signed by plaintiff no.2, a public notice is said to have been issued in a Kannada daily newspaper, dated 4.9.2002, warning the general public not to transact with the defendants in respect of the suit property. Though the defendants are said to have reacted to the notice by issuing a reply to the plaintiffs, significantly, there was no mention of, either the alleged agreement of sale or the general power of attorney. The plaintiffs therefore sought to challenge the sale deed dated 25.10.2002, in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have also claimed damages for use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants. The defendants having entered appearance had filed their written statement. The claim of plaintiff no.1 that he had acquired the suit property under a gift deed dated 16.2.2004 was denied, however, the property having been acquired by plaintiff no. 2, under a sale deed dated 12.9.1980 was admitted. The alleged gift deed, claimed by plaintiff no.1, was dismissed as a fabricated document, created only to defeat the title to the property of defendant no.1. And denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. It was also contended that the present suit was filed only as a counter to a prior suit instituted by defendant no.2, in OS 8909/2003, before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking a declaration that she was the adopted daughter of Rangaswamy, the deceased husband of plaintiff no.2. The trial court had framed the following issues on the basis of the above pleadings :