N NAGARAJA Vs. D DIGAMBARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No.2 filed the present writ petition against the order dated 03.10.2017 on I.A.No.8 made in O.S.No.4742/2012 dismissing the application filed by the second defendant under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The first respondent who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that the alleged notarized General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is void document and not binding on the plaintiff and further to declare that the alleged sale deed dated 24.10.2001 vide Annexure-F executed by the first defendant being the alleged general power of attorney holder, in favour of the 2nd defendant is illegal and it is not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from further alienating or encumbering the schedule property in any manner and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or obstructing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property or commit any trespass or create any hindrance to the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule i.e., land bearing Sy.No.114 measuring 15 guntas at Mahadevapura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Old Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore East Taluk, contending that he is the owner of the property in question and that the alleged sale deed dated 24.10.2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is illegal and not binding on him.

(3.) The first defendant was placed exparte. The second defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff has executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the second defendant to act on his behalf in respect of the property and the plaintiff is now creating story on a false claim. The defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property investing hard earned money for the purchase of the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.10.2001, which was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru and the second defendant has not violated any order passed by this Court. It was further contended that from the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, the second defendant is in uninterrupted, unchallenged continuous possession, occupation, enjoyment and cultivation without interference of anybody including the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.