Dismissed¶82

Sri. B. Murugesh v. Sri. J. Krishna Kumar

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025RFA/2184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Declaration of title; permanent injunction; RFA under Section 96 CPC; unregistered General Power of Attorney; GPA sales; power of attorney not an instrument of transfer; transfer of immovable property only by registered sale deed; Suraj Lamp (2012) 1 SCC 656; Transfer of Property Act Sections 54, 55, 53-A; Powers of Attorney Act 1882 Sections 1-A, 2; registered sale deed dated 01.09.2014; no prayer for cancellation of sale deed; suit land Sy.No.355 (Old) Sy.No.142, Byduvalli Village, Mudigere; respondent No.2 unrepresented; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A transfer of immovable property can only be undertaken by a deed of conveyance or sale deed which is duly stamped and registered; in the absence of such a registered deed, no right, title or interest in immovable property can be transferred. ¶58

Sri. B. Murugesh Vs Sri. J. Krishna Kumar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/plaintiff proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. +2 more

¶48

Court's answer

¶58

Ratio / Principle

Proceeding on the settled law in Suraj Lamp, a power of attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee, and 'GPA sales' do not convey title or amount to a valid mode of transfer.

¶68

Key takeaways

The appellant/plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property; counsel conceded that no document of title had been produced before the Trial Court, and reliance on an unregistered General Power of Attorney could not sustain the title claim.ratio¶77
The sale of the property to defendant No.2 by a duly registered sale deed dated 01.09.2014 is not disputed by the appellant; a registered sale deed can only be cancelled where cancellation is prayed for, and the plaintiff made no such prayer in the suit, so title under that registered deed remained unaffected.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench; per Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju) dismissed RFA No. 2184 of 2017 filed under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017 in O.S. No. 132/2015 (Senior Civil Judge JMFC, Mudigere) dismissing the appellant-plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over Sy.No.355 (Old) Sy.No.142, 4 acres, Byduvalli Village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk. The appellant relied on a grant certificate dated 18.01.1994 and a power of attorney dated 24.05.1994 executed in favour of defendant No.1, who allegedly conveyed the property to defendant No.2 (M/s Atulyam Estates LLP) by registered sale deed dated 01.09.2014. Counsel conceded that no document of title had been produced before the Trial Court and sought to rely on an unregistered General Power of Attorney produced in the appeal. Relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court held that immovable property can be transferred only by a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance, that a power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer, and that GPA sales do not convey title. As the registered sale deed dated 01.09.2014 was not disputed and no prayer for its cancellation had been made in the suit, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal, closing pending interim applications. Despite service of notice, there was no representation for respondent No.2.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2184 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. MURUGESH

¶10

S/O BASAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O PRAKRUTHI NILAYA 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS GANDHINAGAZRA CHIKKAMAGALUR TOWN CHIKKAMABALUR DISTRICT-577101

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. GURURAJ. R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. J. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶16

S/O K JAGADISH CHANDRA NAIR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ADVOCATE R/O HOUSE NO.37/1986 KOMAROTH LANE AZAZD ROAD, KALOOR COCHIN-17 KERALA.

¶17

M/S ATULYAM ESTATES LLP

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(PAN ABAFA 4755F)

¶22

NO.229 1ST FLOOR 7TH CROSS, BINNAMANGALA I STAGE, CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGARA BANGALORE-560 038

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S NO. 132/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC MUDIGERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶27

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

¶34

The present Regular First Appeal is filed challenging Judgment and Decree dated 14.09.2017 in O.S.No.132/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mudigere [hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment]. By the Impugned Judgment, the suit filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction by the appellant was dismissed.

¶35

Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶36

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their cause title before the Trial Court.

¶37

The facts of the case are as follows :-

¶38

The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to suit property bearing (new) Sy.No.355 (Old) Sy.No.142 measuring 4 acres situated at Byduvalli Village, Gonibeedu

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Hobli, Mudigere Taluk [hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'].

¶42

It is the case of the plaintiff that he received a grant certificate on 18.01.1994 and from the date of such grant, he is in possession of the suit property. He further submitted that since he was not able to look after the property, he had executed a power of attorney dated 24.05.1994 in favour of defendant No.1. Thereafter, the power of attorney was cancelled by issuing a legal notice on 19.07.2021, which also set out that the defendant was not to deal with the property. However, it is the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that defendant No.1Sri J. Krishna Kumar used the power of attorney to sell the property to defendant No.2-M/s. Atulyam Estates LLP, through a registered sale date dated 01.09.2014.

¶43

The learned Trial Court after examination of the

¶44

pleadings, based thereon framed the following issues:-

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

¶49

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as sought ?

¶50

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

¶51

4. What order or decree ?"

¶52

The Trial Court after examination of the parties and on perusal of the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff found that although the plaintiff claimed to have issued a power of attorney, no power of attorney dated 25.04.1994 was produced by him. The documents that were produced by the plaintiff were not sufficient to establish his title nor did it disclose that he was in possession of the suit property and thus the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff does not

¶54

dispute the fact that he did not produce any document of title before the Trial Court. He however, submits that he has filed an application to produce an unregistered General Power of Attorney before this Court, claiming title on that basis.

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

It is settled law that a transfer of immovable

¶58

property can only be undertaken by a deed of conveyance or sale deed which is duly stamped and registered. The Supreme Court in SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LD.TR.DIR VS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR¹ while explaining transfers has held that in the absence of a registered sale deed title cannot be transferred as follows :-

¶59

“18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.

¶60

"19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance

¶61

(deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP

¶62

1 (2012 (1) SCC 656)

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter."

¶66

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶67

The Supreme Court further, while discussing the scope

¶68

of Power of Attorney in the Suraj Lamps case, has held that a Power of Attorney does not have the effect of transfer of title. The relevant extract is below:-

¶69

"20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the

¶70

acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid

¶75

mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales."

¶76

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶77

The appellant/plaintiff has been unable to establish his title over the suit schedule property. It is not disputed

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:47735-DB RFA No. 2184 of 2017

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

by the appellant/plaintiff that property has been sold to defendant No.2 by a duly registered sale deed on 01.09.2014. Concededly, a registered sale deed can only be cancelled where prayed for. No prayer for cancellation of the registered sale deed has been made by the plaintiff in the suit either.

¶81

In view of the settled law, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 14.09.2017, which would require interference by this Court.

¶82

This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending interim applications, if any, stand closed.

¶83

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶85

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri. B. Murugesh v. Sri. J. Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. Murugesh v. Sri. J. Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sri. Manian

Abhyudaya Educational Trust Vs B. K. Gowda

Smt Yellamma Vs Sri R Ajitchand Jain

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs the Registrar

Director and Dean Vs M/S Global Computers

The Management of Vs H B Biradar