P V MANJUNATH Vs. M KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2003 passed by the 24th Additional City Civil Judge in O.S.No.2551/1995. By the impugned judgment the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that the sale deed dated 6.12.1991 executed in favour of the second defendant by the alleged power of attorney does not bind him.

(2.) Respondents are defendants' No. 1 and 2 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred herein with their ranks before the trial Court. The subject matter of the suit is the site bearing Nos.99 &100 out of V.P.Khata No.1891, situated at Vijinagapura at Kothnur, Kodandarama Reddy Layout, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 30' east to west and 70' north to south.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: That he has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 10.06.1992 from the first defendant and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The second defendant filed O.S.No.4421/1992 against himself and the first defendant claiming that one N. Prakash Gupta the alleged power of attorney of the second defendant has sold to him the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 06.12.1991. On verification with the first defendant it was found that he has not executed any of such power of attorney in favour of N. Prakash Gupta. The said document is forged one. Therefore, the sale deed does not bind him and affect the sale deed executed by the first defendant on 10.06.1992 in his favour. The first defendant has issued notice to the second defendant that the power of attorney executed in favour of Prakash Gupta is cancelled. Prakash Gupta has issued a reply stating that he has surrendered power of attorney executed by first defendant in his favour. On that count also execution of sale in favour of second defendant is not valid. Defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other filed O.S.No.4421/1992 to harass him suppressing the sale deed in his favour and his possession of the property. Hence the suit.