Karnataka High Court
Smt.Veena Mahabaleshwar Naik vs Smt.Nalini Pandarinath Bende on 5 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
RFA No. 100523 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100523 OF 2018 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.VEENA MAHABALESHWAR NAIK
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
2. GURUPRASAD MAHABALESHWAR NAIK
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BELEKERI,
TALUK ANKOLA-581314.
2.(A) DEEPASHREE MAHANDAS NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GINDIWADA NANDANAGADDA, KARWAR.
2.(B) CHETANA NAGARAJ NAIK,
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
by
SHIVAKUMAR OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
HIREMATH
Date: 2024.02.22
14:47:24 +0530 2.(C) CHITRA MAHABALESHWAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
(BOTH APPELLANTS 2(B) AND (C) ARE
R/O: BELIKERI TQ: ANKOLA DIST KARWAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.NALINI PANDARINATH BENDE
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
RFA No. 100523 of 2018
1.(A) SMT. MANISHA SANJAYA KUNKOLKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MORALIUM KUDCHORIM GOA
1.(B) SMT. NITISHA JAIWANT RAJYADYAX
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MADDIWALA,
VICHUNDREM NETORLIM,
SOUTH GOA, GOA-403704.
2. SADASHIV SHANTARAM KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE,
3. SANJIYA SHANTARAM KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE,
JITENDRA SHANTARAM KULKARNI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS R2,3 AND 5.
4. MANGESH SHANTARAM KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE,
RESP.2 TO 4 ARE
R/O: KANASAGERI SADASHIVGAD,
KARWAR-581352.
5. U.F.M. KRISHNARAYA NAGESH SHENVI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELEKERI TALUK, ANKOLA-581314.
6. GANAPATHI KRISHNARAYA SHENVI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELEKERI TALUK, ANKOLA-581314.
7. RAJENDRA VINAYAK NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. AREBAIL,
YALLAPUR TALUK-581359.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
RFA No. 100523 of 2018
8. BRANCH MANAGER
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
BELEKERI BRANCH, ANKOLA TALUK-581314.
9. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O. KRISHNARAYA SHENVI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O. BELEKERI TALUK, ANKOLA-581314.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2, R1(A) AND R1(B)
R3 AND R4; NOTICE SERVED TO R5;
SRI. S.V. YAJI, R6 AND R9;
SRI. VISHWANTH HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. S.S. GAIKWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE 7-9-2018 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANKOLA IN OS NO. 10/2017,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This first appeal is filed calling-in-question the legality
and correctness of the Judgement and preliminary decree
passed in O.S.No.10/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ankola
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
dated 07.09.2018, wherein the learned trail Court has
passed a preliminary decree by metes and bounds in favour
of the plaintiffs and has held that the plaintiff No.1 and
Defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit
schedule properties so also plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are together
entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.
Learned Trial Court has also declared that the sale deed
executed in favour of one Sri. Mahabaleshwar Noona Naik is
not binding on the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same,
appellants who are defendant Nos.4 and 5 before the trial
Court has approached this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred
to their original ranks before the trial Court. Appellants are
defendant Nos.4 and 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the
plaintiffs. Rest of the respondents are defendants.
3. The facts in brief to the case on hand as borne
out from the pleadings are as follows-
A suit for Declaration, partition and consequential
separate possession came to be presented by the plaintiffs
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
against the defendants, urging that the plaintiffs being 5th
girl child and children of 4th girl child of the propositus and
defendant No.1 being the second son of the propositus are
the coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family and averred
that their propositus is deceased Sri. Nagesh Yashwant
Shenvi, who owned self-acquired properties which are
morefully described as the suit schedule properties. Further,
it is the case of the plaintiffs that, propositus expired leaving
behind five children and after his demise, the schedule
properties were transferred to the name of 1st son of the
propositus, namely Sri. Vaman as per ME No. 3780 dated
04.12.1967 belonging to Belekeri, village, Ankola. Further,
Sri. Vaman expired issueless on 30.08.1982 and as an effect
of which, on 22.09.1982 vide ME. No. 5628 of belekeri
village, these schedule properties came to be transferred in
the name of 1st defendant, who is the 2nd son of propositus
of the joint family. Subsequently, it is further averred in the
plaint that, the third son of propositus has also expired
issueless and the fourth child, who is the daughter of
propositus has also expired leaving behind her 4 children
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
who are plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 in the suit. It is on this ground,
suit schedule properties came to be managed by the 1st
defendant along with 2nd defendant-son of 1st defendant. In
furtherance to the above background, these suit schedule
properties came to be transferred in the name of one
deceased Sri. Mahabaleswar Noona Naika and defendant
No.3 and thereby post death of Sri. Mahabaleswar Noona
Naika, these properties have been succeeded by defendant
No. 4 and 5.
4. This fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs in
the month of April, 2013, when they visited their native for
the purpose of family function. When the same was
enquired with defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are in possession
of the said suit schedule properties, shell shocked, they also
informed the plaintiffs about the fact that, the contesting
defendants have deceitfully obtained the signature from
Defendant No.1 and have carried out necessary mutation
records in their name and also informed that they are
unaware of the intervening facts. On enquiry, the plaintiffs
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
also came to know that defendant No. 4 and 5 have
borrowed the loan from defendant No.6-bank, behind the
back of these coparceners and aggrieved by the said action
of the defendant Nos.3 to 5, plaintiffs filed the suit against
the defendants, seeking for the relief as aforementioned.
The plaintiffs also sought a consequential prayer to set aside
the records created in favour of defendants.
5. Post issuance of summons, the defendants appeared
before the trial Court and filed the written statements.
Defendant No.1 and 2 supported the versions reiterated by
the plaintiffs prayed for a decree accordingly. Defendant
No.3 who filed the written statement on 08.11.2013,
opposed the contention of the plaint and contended that
Item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule 'A' properties were
agreed to be sold by defendant No.1 to one Sri.
Mahabaleswara Noona Naik vide sale agreement dated
11.08.1995 in the capacity of General Power of Attorney
dated 11.08.1995. He would further aver in his written
statement that, since then, the defendant No. 3 to 5 and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
late Mahabaleswara Noona Naik is in possession of the said
Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit schedule 'A' properties and as
such, he would justify the borrowings taken from defendant
Nos. 4 and 5 to develop the said schedule properties and he
would further contend that, though an agreement of sale
was entered between the defendant No.1 and one Sri.
Mahabaleshwar Naik, the said agreement was not registered
for the reason that, Sri. Mahabaleshwar Noona Naik had not
turned up for complete payment of sale consideration due to
financial difficulties. Accordingly, on 20.11.2006, on
complete payment of sale consideration, 1st defendant,
through his power of attorney holder i.e, 5th defendant
herein, transferred Item Nos.1 and 2 of Schedule A
properties in the name one late Sri. Mahabaleshwara Naik
and defendant No.3 herein. It is on this ground, the
defendant No.3 prayed to dismiss the suit in respect to Item
No.1 and 2 of Schedule 'A' properties. Defendant No.5 also
filed the written statement opposing the case of the
plaintiffs and reiterated the averment of the defendant No.3
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
6. Post assessment of the plaint and written statement
filed by the plaintiffs and defendants respectively, learned
trial Judge framed the issued and the same reads as under -
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the father of
defendant Nos.4 and 5 and defendant No.3 had
concocted the document in respect of Item Nos. 1
and 2 of the plaint "A' schedule property by misusing
the innocence of the defendant No. 1?
2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he had
not executed any Power of Attorney and Sale Deed in
favour of defendant No.3 and father of defendant
Nos. 4 and 5 respectively as contended in para No.3
of his written statement?
3. Whether the defendant Nos.3 to 5 prove that the
suit is bad for non inclusion of the family properties?
4. Whether the defendant Nos.3 to 5 prove that
defendant No.1 had sold the property for and on
behalf of the family and for family necessity?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged Sale
Deed said to have been executed in favour of
defendant No.3 and father of defendant Nos.4 and 5
are not binding on them?
6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled
to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property?
7. Whether the defendant No.2 further proves that
the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
8. Whether the defendant No.2 further proves that he
is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit schedule
property?
9. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled
to the relief of declaration as prayed for?
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
10.Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled
and separate possession of suit schedule property as
prayed for?
11.What order or decree?
7. In support of the plaintiffs case, 3rd plaintiff stepped
into the witness box and filed an affidavit in support of his
evidence and reiterated the contents of the suit and got
marked 18 documents i.e. Exs.P1 to P18 in favour of the
plaintiffs and prayed for allowing the suit. Further,
defendant No.1, examined himself as DW.1 and supported
the case of the plaintiffs and prayed to decree the suit as
prayed for. On the contrary, defendant No.3, examined as
DW2 and defendant No.4 examined as DW3, filed their
affidavit in support of their evidence and objected the suit
filed by the plaintiffs. Further, defendant No.6 manager of
Indian overseas Bank, stepped into the witness box as DW4
and deposed that, as on the date of grant of loan, the
property stood in the name of contesting defendants. As
such, the bank has sanctioned them the said loan.
Defendants No.3,5 and 6 together have got marked 10
documents in support of their defence i.e., Exs.D1 to D10.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
8. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence produced by the respective parties, learned trial
Judge answered the Issue Nos.1,2,5,6,7,8 and 9 in the
affirmative and Issue Nos. 3 and 4 in the negative and Issue
No. 10 and 11 as per the final order and proceeded to pass
a preliminary decree as aforementioned. The legality and
correctness of which, is the challenge before this Court.
9. Heard Sri. Santhosh B Mane learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri. J.S.Shetty learned counsel for caveator
respondent No.2 so also respondent Nos. 1(A),1(B), 3 and
4, Sri. S.V. Yaji learned counsel for respondent No.6, Sri.
Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and
Sri. S.S. Gaikwad learned counsel for Respondent No. 8.
Respondent No. 5 though served, remained unrepresented.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant
Nos.4 and 5 would contend that, learned trial Judge has
passed the impugned Judgment on non-application of mind
and he has also failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidences made available before this Court, in
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
right perspective. As such, he would plead for interference
in the impugned Judgment. He would further, relying on
Ex.P18, would contend that, the suit schedule properties are
grant lands as per the Land Reforms Act, 1961, and
plaintiffs being the 2nd daughter and legal heirs of 1st
daughter, are not entitled to any share in the said suit
schedule properties.
11. Learned council would further contend that, the
agreement of sale and exchange of interest over item Nos. 1
and 2 of schedule "A" properties had happened, way back in
1995 itself and subsequently, it was also confirmed by
registered sale deed in 2006 as per Ex.P5 and as such,
would contend that, the contesting respondents/defendant
Nos.4 and 5 are in possession of the said suit schedule
properties since, 1995 and the suit being filed in the year
2013, is not maintainable, as the same is beyond limitation
prescribed.
12. He would also contend that, the sale consideration
to Ex.P5, was made through cheque and conveyance was
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
entered upon through Power of attorney holder of plaintiffs
and defendant No.1 and as such, all the ingredients and
pre-requisites of a conveyance has been fulfilled in
accordance with law and learned trial Judge, without
appreciating the said fact, has proceeded to dismiss the
claim of the contesting respondents, which is contrary to the
facts of the case.
13. Leaned council would also in contra to the reliance
placed by the learned trial Judge, would contend that the
Top Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v.
State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656, has
clearly laid that, the said proposition shall apply only to
prospective purchasers and has clearly barred invoking the
same to the transactions which are already processed with.
14. Further, he would contend that, the contesting
defendants had also availed loan on the said properties
since, 2006 and the same is being reflected in the record of
rights pertaining the schedule properties and even then, the
plaintiffs have failed to question the same before this Court,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
in time, and as such, he would contend that the action of
the plaintiffs, filing this suit belatedly, is in the teeth of
Doctrine of laches. Accordingly, he along with learned
counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 6 pray for allowing the
appeal by setting aside the preliminary decree passed by
the trial Court.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 to 4,
defendant No.2 and defendant No.7 would reiterate their
contention before the trial Court and submit that, they being
the class I legal heirs in the family of deceased propositus,
are entitled for the claim in the suit schedule properties in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta
Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1.
They would further contend that, though the defendants are
claiming the right over the said specified schedule
properties, the respondents who were the plaintiffs before
the trial Court were not the signatories to the said sale deed
and it is settled norm by the Hon'ble Apex Court as rightly
considered by the learned trial Judge that, power of attorney
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
holder either temporary or permanent has no right to sign
to a sale conveyance on behalf of his master and transfer
any immovable property to other persons. As such, on
these grounds, learned counsels, drawing the attention to
the undisputed facts that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4,6 and 9
are coparceners in the family of the deceased propositus,
would pray to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants and
confirm the preliminary decree passed in their favour by the
trial Court.
16. Having heard the learned council for the respective
parties so also having perused the records made available
before us including the trial Court records, the only question
that would arise for our consideration is that-
"Whether the judgement and
preliminary decree passed by the learned
trial Judge is perverse and calls for any
interference?"
17. Answer to the Point : On careful perusal of the
evidence tendered before the trial Court, 3rd plaintiff has
entered into the witness box as PW.1 and has reiterated the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
contents of the plaint and has also got marked Exs.P1 to
P18 and has deposed that, the suit schedule properties have
devolved in the name of the propositus as grant lands and
the same is being devolved among his legal heirs
subsequent to his demise being intestate. As such, he has
deposed that, he is unaware of the transaction that is being
done by the 1st defendant behind his back. He would also
depose that, he is unaware of the circumstances in which 1st
defendant signed the documents and also power of attorney
in favour of the 3rd defendant and deceased
Mahabaleshwara Naik.
18. In support of case of the plaintiffs, 1st defendant
has stepped into the witness box as DW.1 and deposed
identical to that of PW.1 by reiterating the contents of the
written statement filed by him. Further, in contra to the
case of the plaintiffs, defendant No.3 stepped into the
witness box as DW.2, reiterated the contents of his written
statement and got marked Exs.D1 to 3 and further deposed
that, there was an agreement of sale entered upon between
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
DW.1 and deceased Sri. Mahabaleshwar Naik to purchase
the suit schedule properties and for which, DW.1 was very
much empowered to act upon the same, as he was the
power of attorney holder, holding the interest of the
plaintiffs to execute on their behalf. Further, he has also
deposed that, both the family of the deceased
Mahabaleshwara Naik and defendant No.3 are in the
possession of the said suit schedule properties since, 1995,
and after final settlement of the consideration amount, the
sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant No.3 and the
deceased Mahabaleshwar Naik on 20.11.2006.Further,
defendant No.5 in support of case of the defendant No.3 has
entered into the witness box as DW.3 and has deposed that,
his father deceased Mahabaleshwara Naik had purchased
the suit schedule properties from DW.1, who was the
attorney holder of the plaintiffs rights and interests on the
suit schedule properties and he has got marked documents
Exs.D4 and D5. In support of the action taken by the bank
in disbursing the loan to defendant Nos.4 and 5, defendant
No.6, being the manager, stepped into the witness box as
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
DW.4 and deposed that, after due verification of records and
also on the basis of previous loan transaction and the spot
inspection, bank has disbursed the loan to defendant Nos.4
and 5 and as such, he had got marked Exs.D6 to D10 before
the trial Court in support of his case.
19. On careful scrutiny of the evidence tendered the
chief so also the cross-examination of the defendants, this
Court would find that, except for the fact that, there exists a
sale agreement in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5, there
seems no other evidence to state that, they are in the
possession of the suit schedule properties and on the
contrary, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have
produced before the Court, all the documents which tend to
show that, the transactions that are taken place has
happened behind the back of the plaintiffs; on the basis of a
General Power of Attorney executed by DW.1. Even in the
cross examination of PW.1, there are no contrary
depositions forthcoming in favour of the case of the
contesting defendants i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 5 to state
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
that, the plaintiffs were aware of the transactions that was
entered with.
20. It is on the above examined view, this Court is in
concurrence that, the primary contention advanced by the
learned council for the appellants/defendant Nos.4 and 5
and the legs on which, the appeal has been put forth before
this Court is, the legality of dismissing the contention of the
contesting defendants on the basis of judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd
supra. In order to enunciate this legal position, this Court
would now lay its emphasis upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526, wherein, Hon'ble
Apex Court in paragraph Nos. 9 to 13 of the Order has held
as under -
"9. It was also submitted that there was a
prohibition of registration of documents of
transfer/conveyance with respect to the
area where the property in question is
situate and, therefore, the transfers affected
under the customary documents was
sufficient to confer title on the respondent.
It was also submitted that the judgment in
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which was of the
year 2011, had prospective application and
would not have any bearing on the title of
the respondents which came to him under
the customary documents executed in the
year 2008 much prior to the judgment in
the case of Suraj Lamps &
Industries (supra).
10. Having considered the submissions at
the outset, it is to be emphasized that
irrespective of what was decided in the case
of Suraj Lamps and Industries (supra) the
fact remains that no title could be
transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered
Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an
unregistered General Power of Attorney.
The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides
that a document which requires compulsory
registration under the Act, would not confer
any right, much less a legally enforceable
right to approach a Court of Law on its
basis. Even if these documents i.e. the
Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney
were registered, still it could not be said that
the respondent would have acquired title
over the property in question. At best, on
the basis of the registered agreement to
sell, he could have claimed relief of specific
performance in appropriate proceedings. In
this regard, reference may be made to
sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act
and section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or
interest in immovable property can be
conferred without a registered document.
Even the judgment of this Court in the case
of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
down the same proposition. Reference may
also be made to the following judgments of
this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth
(Wright) Issar
(ii). Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi
(iii). Paul Rubber Industries Private
Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra
12. The embargo put on registration of
documents would not override the statutory
provision so as to confer title on the basis of
unregistered documents with respect to
immovable property. Once this is the settled
position, the respondent could not have
maintained the suit for possession and
mesne profits against the appellant, who
was admittedly in possession of the property
in question whether as an owner or a
licensee.
13. The argument advanced on behalf of
the respondent that the judgment in Suraj
Lamps & Industries (supra) would be
prospective is also misplaced. The
requirement of compulsory registration and
effect on non-registration emanates from
the statutes, in particular the Registration
Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The
ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra)
only approves the provisions in the two
enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court
have taken the same view.
(Underlined emphasis relied by US)
If the case on hand is viewed from the angle of
principles rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court, it is also the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
case of the appellants/defendant Nos.4 and 5 that, the sale
deed at Ex.D5 was executed by the defendant No.1, is on
the strength of General Power of Attorney. They also further
contend that, the transaction being of the year 2006, the
case referred by the learned trial Judge has no bearing to
the case on hand, as the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down
prospective ruling in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd
supra. But, in view of the settled norms above referred, this
Court deems, no necessity to further elaborate the settled
norm which is squarely applicable to the case on hand and
would straight away reject the contention of the
appellants/defendant Nos.4 and 5 for the reason that, it is
the undisputed facts and also clearly established from the
evidences deposed, that the said sale was effected on the
basis of a General Power of Attorney and the same was
though, conveyed in the year 2006, in view of the provisions
of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act,1908 and also
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any sale or
conveyance entered upon on the pretext of Power of
Attorney requires to be set at naught and accordingly, we
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
hold this contention against the appellants/defendant Nos.4
and 5 and uphold the findings recorded by the learned trial
Judge in this regard.
21. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant
Nos.4 and 5 also vehemently makes his submission about
the sale consideration and also possession of defendant
Nos.3 to 5 over the properties since 1995 but except for the
mutation records and loan transactions, we do not find
anything else to hold this contention in favour of the
appellants. It is now a settled norm that, no rights are
created in favour of anyone, merely on the names found in
mutation records or khata extracts. In so far as the loan
transaction is concerned, DW.4 has clearly deposed that, in
view of earlier loan transaction, RTCs or Mutation Records
and also on the spot inspection, they have granted the
contesting defendants the loan. This evidence by DW.4
would clearly indicate that, there were no checks and
balances as mandated under law, were conducted by the
banks and also the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3128-DB
were not notified as to the spot inspection is concerned.
Hence, in such circumstances, we also do not find any
probability as to defendant Nos.3 to 5 being in possession of
the properties since from 1995 or 2006.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of
the considered opinion that, the above raised point requires
to be answered in negative and accordingly, the First
Appeal filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.4 and 5 do not
merit for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
