H SHANMUGAM; VASUGI; DAKSHINAMURTHY; SANGEETHA; SARAVANA; LAKSHMI Vs. B S JAYARAM; PADMA; ROOPESH; ARUN; SHANTAMMA; JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the absolute owner of a house site bearing no.6, Jarakabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North taluk. He is said to have purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1992. The said site was more fully described in Schedule- A to the plaint.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there was no dispute that one Chinnappa, the owner of the land in question had constituted one V.K Ramanna as his power of attorney, to deal with lands bearing no.4, 5 and 6. It is pursuant to the same that a registered sale deed had been executed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff had the necessary title in respect of the property. Whereas the defendants were claiming that the said power of attorney holder had further delegated the power conferred under the said attorney, under which they were claiming a right to hold the property. The court below had completely glossed over the circumstance that a delegate could not further sub-delegate his authority. And hence the defendants could not even claim as agents of the owner.

(3.) On the other hand, apart from seeking to justify the judgment of the trial court, the learned counsel for the respondents has canvassed elaborate arguments on points of law, which were not even present to the mind of the trial court when dismissing the suit.