B.S. NAGENDRA Vs. NAVARATHANMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals coming on for orders regarding filing of paper books, the appeals could be disposed of on a preliminary consideration.

(2.) IN that, appeal in RFA No. 88/2010 is preferred by the plaintiff against a dismissal of the suit for declaration, injunction and possession. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the absolute owner of the suit property therein by virtue of a sale deed dated 18.2.1982 and sought for consequential relief of declaration, to declare that the sale deed dated 16.5.1997 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was null and void. He also sought for the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant No. 2 to demolish the structures put up on the schedule property and to deliver physical possession of the same and to restrain defendant No. 2 from alienating the suit property.

(3.) IT is alleged that the plaintiff noticed that some persons were trying to put up construction over the land, claiming title over the property on the basis of the sale deed said to have been executed by one Malleswaram Tailoring Co -operative Society Limited. The plaintiff therefore carried out a search and noticed that, on the basis of an alleged power of attorney said to have been executed by his father in favour of the Society, certain sale deeds had been executed. According to the plaintiff, his father never executed any power of attorney and he had already filed a suit challenging the execution of sale deed as well as the power of attorney, in a civil suit bearing O.S. No. 5934/1999 apart from seeking other reliefs. The said suit was pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. It was further alleged that there was an order of status quo granted in that case and on the basis of a representation made by the defendants, the Court had directed the defendants to put up construction. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No. 1 was a stranger and that he had no right to execute any sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 2.The power of attorney was also alleged to be a forged document and that the defendant No. 2 had managed to obtain khata from defendant No. 3 and also got the building plan sanctioned and was proceeding with the constructions. It is in this background, claiming that the sale deed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 was null and void, the plaintiff was before the Court below. The defendants having served summons, failed to appear.