Case Note & Summary
Background: This matter arises from a Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which reversed the trial court’s decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The dispute concerns the ownership of immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of Amaravathi Town Municipality, Amaravathi. Facts: The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased it vide registered sale deed dated 30.04.1986 for Rs.24,000/- from the vendors Y.D.Hulukunta Rao, Tirumala Rao and Y.D.Raghunanda Rao. After purchase, the plaintiff’s name was entered in revenue records and he paid taxes. He had taken possession and constructed up to foundation level but could not proceed due to financial difficulties. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1, who was a friend of the family, without any right, title or interest, created a fraudulent power of attorney purportedly executed by the plaintiff and, on that basis, sold portions of the property (40 x 60 feet on 02.02.1992 and the remaining 20 x 60 feet on 02.03.1992) to defendant No.2 via registered sale deeds. Defendant No.2 in turn sold the property to defendant No.3 on 24.08.1992. Defendant No.3 commenced construction on the suit property without proper permission. The plaintiff contended that all these sale deeds are null and void and sought declaration of his ownership and permanent injunction against defendants 2 and 3 to restrain them from constructing and to hand over vacant possession. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff’s prior ownership but asserting that the sales were made on the strength of a genuine power of attorney executed by the plaintiff, and thus the transfers were valid. Defendant No.2 pleaded that he purchased the property from the power of attorney holder and then sold it to defendant No.3 lawfully. Defendant No.3 denied the allegations, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value, and stated that she had obtained necessary permissions for construction. The legal representatives of defendant No.1 (who died during pendency) pleaded ignorance of the facts but supported the validity of the transactions. Procedural History: The trial court (Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet) in O.S. No. 54/1995 decreed the suit on 06.09.2005, declaring the plaintiff as owner and granting permanent injunction. On appeal, the first appellate court (II Addl. District Judge, Bellary) in R.A. No. 52/2005 reversed the decree on 23.04.2011. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff died and was substituted by his legal representatives; respondent No.4 died and the appeal against him abated. The matter was heard at the admission stage with the consent of both parties’ advocates and reserved for judgment. Legal Issues: The written text does not explicitly frame the questions of law considered by the High Court. Arguments: The arguments of the parties are not detailed in the available text. Court’s Analysis and Decision: The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court’s reasoning or the final decision.
Issue of Consideration
KAHC020223652011_1
