22. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 has specifically admitted that when he has purchased property, i.e., Site No.18, it was a vacant site and he has constructed ground floor in the year 1991 and he has constructed first floor in the year 2001. He has specifically admitted that he has purchased entire house property which measures 40 feet x 40 feet. He has also admitted that the power of attorney executed in favour of his wife in respect of the property measuring 40 feet x 40 feet. He has also admitted that till he purchases the property from his wife, his wife was power of attorney holder. He has admitted that no sale deed has been executed by M.V. Narasaraju in favour of his wife. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that admittedly, M.V. Narasaraju was not the original owner of the schedule property shown in O.S. No.26007/2007. As per the documents and oral evidence, it is evident that M.V. Narasaraju was power of attorney holder of the original owner of the property, viz., Marappa, Chikka Siddanna, M. Nagaraj and P. Marappa. It also discloses that the power of attorney holder has executed one more power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 – who is none other than defendant No.1. Further, it is evident that the second power of attorney holder, i.e., defendant No.2 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 – which is not permissible under law. Admittedly, defendant No.2 has not obtained any sale deed either from the original owners of the property or from M.V. Narasaraju who is the General Power of Attorney holder of original owners. Therefore, defendants have failed to prove that they are in lawful possession over the disputed area measuring East-West : 10 feet and North-South : 40 feet.
