Smt J C Kamala Vs Sri J C Venkataswamy Reddy Since Decd by Lrs — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt J C Kamala Vs Sri J C Venkataswamy Reddy Since Decd by Lrs — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court? +2 more

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration - whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality calling for interference - was expressly answered in the 'Negative'.

Ratio / Principle

The doubts expressed by the Trial Court about the defence/documents were held not well-founded with the pleadings or evidence on record and were liable to be rejected; the Trial Court arrived at a right conclusion in dismissing the suit, and the High Court found no reason to interfere.

Key takeaways

Although the plaintiff seriously disputed her signatures on Exs.D1 to D3 and alleged forgery, she offered no explanation as to how her signatures appeared thereon, filed no application before the Trial Court to refer the disputed documents to a handwriting expert, and examined no other witness to probablise her contention; consequently, an adverse inference was drawn against her.ratio¶142
Considering the Sub-Registrar endorsements (Exs.P23 to 26) along with Exs.D1 to D4, the court accepted the defendants' contention that the plaintiff had in fact executed the sale deeds Exs.D1 to D3, acknowledged the consideration by issuing receipt Ex.D4, and executed a Special Power of Attorney Deed in favour of defendant No.1 for presenting and admitting execution of the deeds before the Sub-Registrar.ratio¶153

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (M G Uma, Judge) - RFA No. 91 of 2007 (DEC) (filed u/s 96 CPC), decided 21.11.2025: dismissed with costs, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1993 of the Addl. Civil Judge, Kolar (cause title: OS.No. 51/1993; body text: O.S.No.29/1985) which had rejected the plaintiff's (Smt. J.C. Kamala, by LRs Geetha Jayanthi and Vasudha Narayana) claim, founded on a registered Gift Deed dated 17.05.1955 from her father defendant No.1 Venkataswamy Reddy, to a declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds dated 07.11.1984 (Exs.D1-D3) and permanent injunction over lands at K.G. (Jodi) Hanumanthapura, Malur taluk. Held: the plaintiff, alleging forged signatures/impersonation via a fabricated 'Power of Attorney Deed', neither sought handwriting-expert examination at the trial stage nor produced the Gift Deed or any corroborating witness, drawing an adverse inference against herself; DWs.1-6 (purchasers, scribe DW.4 and attesting witnesses) consistently deposed to execution of Exs.D1-D3 by the plaintiff, payment of consideration acknowledged by receipt Ex.D4, and registration on 16.03.1985 upon presentation through a Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1; Sub-Registrar endorsements Exs.P23-P26 recorded her admission of that SPA; mere denial of signatures on registered deeds cannot defeat their effect. The suit was further defective because purchaser Muniyappa under Ex.D3 was never impleaded, and a common declaration/cancellation of three distinct deeds to different transferees constituted mis-joinder of causes of action. Interlocutory applications I.A.Nos.1-8 of 2024 (LRs of deceased respondents 3 and 6; delays of 5000+/3700+ days; predecessor applications dismissed on 17.04.2023 and never challenged) and I.A.No.12 of 2023 (belated handwriting-expert appointment, 16 years into the appeal) were all dismissed as the appellant was grossly negligent in prosecution; an expert opinion alone could not decree the suit.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2007 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. J.C. KAMALA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS:

SMT. GEETHA JAYANTHI, WIFE OF S. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.494,14^TH MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034

SMT. VASUDHA NARAYANA, WIFE OF RAJARAM NARAYANA, AGED ABUT 59 YEARS, NO.235, 7^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE -560 038.

…APPELLANTS

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR .S. SHASTRY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. S.M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI J.C. VENKATASWAMY REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS.,

A) SRI. J.C. GOPAL, S/O. VENKATA SWAMY REDDY,

B) SMT. ANKAMMA, WIFE OF J.C. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

BY R1(A) AND APPELLANT AS HER LRS.

BOTH RESIDING AT ATTIBELE, BANGALORE DISTRICT. (BOTH ARE DEAD, FURTHER L.RS ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD).

PERUMALAPPA, SON OF GANGAPPA R/AT KODUR, KADABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK.

DODDA PILLAPPA S/O APPAYYANNA R/AT DYAPASANDRA MALUR TALUK.

MUNIPILLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

A) RAMAKKA W/O MUNIPILLAPPA B) JANARDHANA C) BALAJI D) SHYAMALA E) GEETHA

ALL CHILDRENS OF MUNIPILLAPPA R/AT DYAPASANDRA, MALUR TALUK.

4(F). SRI. RAJKUMAR, SON OF LATE MUNIPILLAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT DYAPASANDRA, MALUR TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SHRIDHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (A-C, F) SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 5 V/O DT. 08.07.22, APPELLANT AND R1(A) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1(B) V/O DT. 8/2/22, APPEAL AGAINST R1(A) AND LRS OF R1(A) STANDS ABATED

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

V/O DT.12.09.22 AND 29.07.10, APPEAL AGAINST DECEASED R3 STANDS DISMISSED

V/O DT. 21.11.25, LRS OF R3 & R6 ARE DISMISSED)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 04.09.1993 PASSED IN OS.NO. 51/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant being the plaintiff in O.S.No.29/1985 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1993, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff to declare her title and for permanent injunction against the defendants and also for cancellation of the sale deed dated 07.11.1984 executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the

suit O.S.No.29/1985 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 6, seeking declaration of her title, for cancellation of Sale Deeds dated 07.11.1984 executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in respect of the properties that are described in the plaint. The schedule attached to the plaint describes the land bearing Sy.No.3 measuring 8.22 acres, Sy.No.4 measuring 11 acres, Sy.No.5 measuring 8.16 acres, Sy.No.17 measuring 7.24 acres, Sy.No.49 measuring 1.39 acres, Sy.No.50 measuring 1.06 acres, Sy.No.51 measuring 2.03 acres, having common boundary situated at K.G. Hanumanthapura, (Jodi Hanumanthapura), Kasaba Hobli, Malur taluk along with eucalyptus trees and 20 fruit bearing tamarind trees with the boundaries mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as "the schedule properties").

It is contended by the plaintiff that, she is the daughter of defendant No.1-J.C. Venkataswamy Reddy. He had two children; one is the plaintiff and the other son is J.C. Gopal. Said Venkataswamy Reddy was owning more than 400 acres of

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

land. Out of love and affection towards the plaintiff, he gifted 1/3^rd share in the lands situated at Jodi Hanumanthapura village under the registered Gift Deed dated 17.05.1955, and the same was accepted by the plaintiff. Ever since then, she was put in possession of the said properties which are described in the schedule. In view of abolition of Jodi village, the plaintiff was granted only 40.30 acres by the Tribunal under the order dated 21.11.1981. The excess land was taken over by the Government. In respect of the land that was granted in favour of plaintiff, she had paid the land revenue and patta and katha stands in her name. Thus, she was in possession and enjoyment of the properties.

The plaintiff contended that since she was residing at Bengaluru, she has given Power of Attorney in favour of her father - J.C. Venkataswamy Reddy to look after the litigations before the Tribunal. During 1984, the brother of the plaintiff by name J.C. Gopal suffered heart attack, and was not in a position to attend the agricultural operations. In the meantime, defendant No.1 was very old, and he was also not in a position to attend the agricultural operations. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 is making attempts to sell away the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

properties including the properties that are belonging to her, by making use of the General Power of Attorney Deed executed by the plaintiff, and taking advantage of the situation as the plaintiff is away at Bengaluru. After coming to know about this intention on the part of defendant No.1, the plaintiff cancelled the General Power of Attorney Deed by publishing the notice in Kannada daily newspaper-Prajavani on 11.10.1984. On seeing this publication, defendant No.1 became upset and they were not on talking terms.

The plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 was intending to sell away all the properties including the schedule properties belonging to her in favour of third parties. Even defendant No.1 had tried to persuade the plaintiff to accept meager amount of Rs.40,000/- and asked to transfer the schedule properties in his favour. The plaintiff was not agreeable for the same.

It is contended that the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 has concocted certain documents purporting to be the sale deeds dated 07.11.1984 said to have been executed by her in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 in respect of

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

the schedule properties. Immediately, she issued the legal notice to the Sub-Registrar, Malur Taluk on 20.02.1985 cautioning him not to register any such sale deeds. Subsequently, she came to know that in-spite of issuance of notice, the Sub-Registrar had registered the sale deed on 25.03.1985. The plaintiff applied for the certified copies of the sale deeds and came to know that defendant No.1 had presented a sale deed before the Sub-Registrar on the basis of a fabricated document styled as 'Power of Attorney Deed' dated 14.07.1985. The plaintiff had never executed such deeds in favour of defendant No.1, nor she had executed any of the sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6. The signatures contained in the sale deeds or the Power of Attorney Deed are not that of the plaintiff, they are the forged signatures and the plaintiff is not bound by the same. In the meantime, the defendants started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the schedule properties. Therefore, she has filed the suit for the above reliefs against defendant Nos.1 to 5.

Defendant Nos.2 to 5 have appeared before the Trial Court and filed their written statement denying the contentions

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

taken by the plaintiff. The name of the father of defendant No.6

is stated to be Pillappa and not Muniyappa as stated in the plaint. The relationship of the plaintiff with defendant No.1 is admitted. It is also admitted that defendant No.1 had a son by name J.C. Gopal. The Gift Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff was not disputed. But the allegation that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and that she is cultivating the same are all denied. The defendants pleaded ignorance about re-grant of the land in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that defendant No.1 was paying the land revenue in respect of the schedule property and it was defendant No.1 who was in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. It was defendant No.1 who was cultivating the land, the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the property and was not cultivating the land.

The defendant pleaded ignorance about execution of the Power of Attorney Deed in favour of defendant No.1 and cancellation of the same. The contention of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 to 5 in collusion with defendant No.1

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

concocted the documents and forged the signatures of the plaintiff are all denied.

It is contended that defendant No.1 was the owner of entire Jodi village, and only with an intention to overcome the rigor of Land Reforms Act, he executed a Gift Deed in respect of some of the properties in favour of the plaintiff. But he continued to be in possession of the same. Even though the name of the plaintiff was shown in the pahanis, defendant No.1 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties. When plaintiff was willing to sell the properties, defendant No.1 had agreed for the same. Thereafter, the defendants approached the plaintiff, since revenue records were standing in her name as the owner, and requested her to sell the properties. On 29.10.1985, there was an agreement to purchase the property. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have given the advance amount of Rs.25,000/-, defendant No.6 and one Muniyappa have paid Rs.20,000/- under the receipt. Regular sale deeds were executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 and one Muniyappa on 07.11.1984 by the plaintiff after receipt of the consideration amount. However, she pleaded inability to appear before the Sub-Registrar and therefore, executed a

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

Special Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to present and admit the execution of the sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar. Accordingly, defendant No.1 presented and admitted execution of the sale deeds and the same were registered. Therefore, it is contended that the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff are binding on her. Since the date of execution of sale deeds it was defendant Nos.2 to 5 who are in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the property. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the suit.

Defendant Nos.2 to 5 have also filed the additional written statement denying each allegations and averments made in the plaint and seeking to dismiss the suit.

Defendant No.1 has not filed any written statement and has not contested the matter.

On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues and additional issues were framed by the Trial Court:

ISSUES

i) Does the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit schedule properties and as such she is entitled to

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

the declaration of her title to the suit schedule properties?

ii) Does the plaintiff further proves that she had validly cancelled the power of attorney executed in favour of her father the 1^st defendant by publishing in the newspaper "Prajavani" on 11-10-1984?

iii) Does the plaintiff further proves that her father - 1^st defendant has made sale deeds regarding the portion of the properties to defendant Nos.2 to 6 without her knowledge and consent?

iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that 1^st defendant has committed fraud on her in manipulating some documents by impersonation as if the plaintiff had executed the alleged power of attorney?

v) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant Nos.2 to 6 being fully aware of her title to the suit schedule properties have purchased the same in collusive sale deeds without consideration?

vi) Does the plaintiff proves that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 are not binding on her and that they are liable to be cancelled?

vii) Does the plaintiff proves that she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties on the date of suit?

viii) Does the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants with her possession of the suit schedule

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

properties, if so does she entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

ix) Does the defendant Nos.2 to 6 prove that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule properties from the first defendant of the plaint and that the sale deeds are binding on the plaintiff?

x) For what decree or order?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

i) Whether the purported signature of the plaintiff found in sale deeds dated 7-11-1984 executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the forged signatures, fraudulently and collusively get-up by defendants and not that of the plaintiff?

ii) Whether the sale deeds dated 7-11-1984 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 are fraudulently brought up without consideration by defendants and hence invalid and will not convey any valid title to defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit properties, and therefore, will not affect the plaintiff's right title and interest in the said properties?

The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1, got marked Exs.P1 to 22 in support of her case. The defendants examined DWs.1 to 6, got marked Exs.D1 to 4 in support of their defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1, 4 to 8 in the

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

negative, issue No.2 in the affirmative, deleted issue No.3, held issue No.9 does not survive for consideration, additional issues in the negative and proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA.No.20/1993. The memorandum of appeal was returned to be presented before the proper Court taking into consideration the pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

Heard Sri.Vigneshwar S. Shastry, learned senior advocate for Sri. S.M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. K.Shrihari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 5. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and call for interference by this Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

It is the specific contention of the plaintiff - appellant that she is the daughter of defendant No.1 - Venkataswamy Reddy, who bequeathed schedule properties in her favour under a Gift Deed dated 17.05.1955. But the said Gift Deed is not produced before this Court even though a declaration is sought regarding title of the plaintiff.

It is the further contention of the plaintiff that, she never executed any sale deeds in favour of any of the defendants as relied on by them as per Exs.D1 to 3 dated 11.03.1984.

Per contra it is the contention of the defendants 2 to 5 that Exs.D1 to 3 are the sale deeds, which bear the signatures of the plaintiff. On the basis of the Special Power of Attorney Deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of her own-

15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

father defendant No.1, sale deeds were presented for registration on 07.03.1985, admitted and registered on 16.03.1985. When such a specific contention was taken by the defendants, plaintiff has no explanation as to how her signatures were found on Exs.D1 to 3, which are dated 07.11.1984. If at all, the plaintiff disputed her signatures seriously, she would have requested the Trial Court to refer those disputed Exs.D1 to D3 for Handwriting Expert to get an opinion. Admittedly, no such applications were filed when the matter was pending before the Trial Court.

It is pertinent to note that, defendant Nos.6 and 3 are examined as DWs.1 and 2 respectively and they have deposed regarding execution of the sale deeds by the plaintiff, payment of the consideration amount in her favour and execution of the Special Power of Attorney Deed in favour of defendant No.1, who in turn presented the sale deeds for registration before the Sub-Registrar. These witnesses have also spoken to about the consideration receipt marked as Ex.D4. Nothing has been elicited from DW.1 or DW.2 either to disbelieve their version or substantiate the stand taken by the plaintiff.

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

DW.3 is defendant No.2 who is also one of the purchasers under Ex.D2. He also spoke about the facts as stated by DWs.1 and 2. In his cross-examination also, nothing has been elicited to shake the defence taken by the defendants.

DW.4 is the scribe who is said to have written Ex.D4the consideration receipt. He specifically states that as per instructions given by the parties, this receipt came to be drafted.

The only contention now raised by the learned senior advocate for the appellant is that, it is written on a piece of paper and there is alteration in the date which mentioned below the signatures of the plaintiff. I have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses including PW.1 and DW.3-the scribe who wrote Ex.D4. There is absolutely no crossexamination seeking explanation about alteration of the date. It is elicited from DW.4 that, defendant No.1 has given piece of paper to draft the receipt, since he was short-tempered, the scribe was not dare enough to ask for a full length sheet. There is no further cross-examination on the said fact. Even if the evidence of DW.4 is to be taken into consideration, as he spoke

17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

that he is the scribe to Exs.D1 to 3, there is no effective crossexamination to disbelieve his version. It is pertinent to note that DW.4 in categorical terms stated that the plaintiff had signed in his presence on Exs.D1 to D4. This version remains unchallenged during cross examination.

DWs.5 and 6 are the witnesses to the sale deedsExs.D1 to 3. These witnesses have also deposed corroborating the contentions taken by the defendants and the written statement and deposed regarding execution of the sale deeds by the plaintiff, presentation of the same by defendant No.1 before the Sub-Registrar on the basis of the Special Power of Attorney Deed.

Learned senior advocate for the appellant contended that the Special Power of Attorney Deed which was the basis for presenting the sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar was not produced before the Trial Court. Of-course the defendants have not produced the same. But nothing prevented the plaintiff from summoning the Sub-Registrar for producing the original Special Power of Attorney Deed that may be available in the Sub-Registrar's office. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff

18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

who has taken serious contention denying execution of 3 registered sale deeds, execution of the Special Power of Attorney Deed in favour of her father, who is arrayed as defendant No.1, Ex.D4 the consideration receipt passed by her, she has not taken any steps to prove any of her contentions as required under law. There is no explanation as to why the plaintiff has not chosen to file any application to refer these disputed documents said to be containing the forged signatures to the Handwriting Expert. Therefore, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that on behalf of the plaintiff she has not examined any other witnesses to probablise her contention.

It is pertinent to note that defendant No.1 is none other than the father of the plaintiff. She has contended that her father in collusion with other defendants executed the sale deeds by forging her signatures. There is absolutely no reason assigned as to why defendant No.1 after bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiff turned hostile to execute the sale deeds in favour of the third parties. It is also pertinent to note that, defendant No.1 even though appeared before the Trial Court, has never chosen to file written statement nor

19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

contested the matter. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is a suit filed by the plaintiff in collusion with her own father - defendant No.1 can not be ruled out.

The evidence of DWs.1 to 6 clearly disclose that, even though Exs.D1 to 3-sale deeds were executed by the plaintiff on 07.11.1984, registration of the same was deferred for the simple reason that, the entire consideration amount was not paid as on the date of execution of Exs.D1 to 3. There is no further cross-examination with regard to the same.

The other contention taken by the learned senior advocate for the appellant is that the GPA Deed executed by her in favour of her father-defendant No.1 was cancelled by publishing in the newspaper on 11.10.1984. But with regard to execution of Special Power of Attorney Deed, except denying, the plaintiff has not made any effort to falsify the contention of the defendants in that regard. Exs.P23, 24 and 25 are the endorsements issued by the Sub-Registrar, according to which, the plaintiff admitted execution of Special Power of Attorney Deed in favour of her father-defendant No.1 for execution and

20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

presentation of the sale deeds. If Exs.P23 to 26 are to be taken into consideration in the light of Exs.D1 to D4, I do not find any hesitation to accept the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had in fact executed the sale deeds as per Exs.D1 to 3 and she had acknowledged the consideration by issuing the receipt as per Ex.D4. She executed a Special Power of Attorney Deed in favour of defendant No.1 for presenting the sale deeds and admitting execution of the same before the Sub-Registrar.

My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents that, one Muniyappa is one of the purchasers under ExD3. But admittedly, he is not a party to the suit. In the absence of the purchaser under the registered sale deeds, the plaintiff could not have sought for declaration of her title and cancellation of the sale deeds. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is mis-joinder of cause of actions as the defendant is seeking common declaration and common prayer for setting aside 3 different sale deeds-Exs.D1 to 3 executed in favour of different persons i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 5.

21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

Learned senior advocate has referred to the

impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court to contend that the Court has expressed few doubts about Ex.D4 as to why the document is written on a piece of paper and not on full length of sheet. As I have already stated that, DW.4 has explained it satisfactory that it was defendant No.1 who gave that piece of paper for writing the consideration receipt. Since he was very short tempered, DW.4 was not dare enough to ask for a full length sheet. There is no further cross-examination on that point.

It is also contended by the learned senior advocate for the appellant that, the Trial Court expressed its doubt as to why the plaintiff being a rich lady gone to the village for execution of the sale deeds. I find no basis for the Trial Court to express such doubt, since there is no cross-examination to any of the witnesses in that regard. Moreover, execution of the sale deeds were admitted by defendant No.1 before the SubRegistrar on the basis of Special Power of Attorney Deed executed by her. The plaintiff never seriously disputed her signatures found on Exs.D1 to 4 by referring the same to the Handwriting Expert. Mere denial of the signatures found on the

22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

registered documents - Exs.D1 to 3 would not prove such defence to avoid the effect of execution of the sale deeds.

Learned senior advocate for the appellant has filed the synopsis and raised various grounds for challenging the impugned judgment. But unfortunately, none of these grounds are supported by the evidence. The pleadings and evidence are the heart and soul of any suit. When there is no pleading nor there is proof by leading evidence, a suit cannot be decreed only on suspicion or on presumptions and assumptions.

It is to be noticed that Exs.D1 to 3 were executed on 07.11.1984, presented for registration on 07.03.1985. The same were admitted and registered on 16.03.1985. The suit came to be filed in the year 1985, it was dismissed in the year 1993. Initially RA.No.20/2023 was filed, which came to be returned for presentation before proper Court. Later, this Regular First Appeal came to be filed in the year 2007 and it came up for final disposal during 2025. In the meantime, 40 long years have lapsed.

The appellants have filed I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 by

23 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

condoning the delay of more than 5000 days. I.A.Nos.6 and 8

of 2024 were filed to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.6 by condoning the delay of more than 3700 days.

The materials on record disclose that, even though summons in the appeal was issued to defendant No.3, the same came to be returned unserved with the shara that "respondent No.3 is dead." In-spite of that, no steps whatsoever was taken to bring his legal representatives on record in time. Initially, I.A.Nos.1 to 3 came to be filed to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3. Later, the said applications came to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application. Subsequently, I.A.Nos.4 to 9 of 2023 were filed to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos.3 and 6. Those applications came to be dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 17.04.2023. Now after lapse of more than 200 days, I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024 were filed to recall the order dated 17.04.2023, where under I.A.Nos.4 to 9 of 2023 were dismissed. Vide order dated 17.04.2023, this Court has noticed that even after lapse of 1000 days of delay, the application do not refer to the date of death of respondent

24 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

Nos.3 or 6. So, the averments are made seeking condonation of delay and to bring the legal representatives on record, which are not sufficient to consider the length of delay caused in filing the applications. Admittedly, the said order dated 17.04.2023 was never challenged by the appellant. I do not find any reason to allow any of these applications-I.A.Nos.1 to 8 of 2024.

The appellant has filed I.A.No.12 of 2023 seeking appointment of Handwriting and Finger Print Expert for the purpose of comparison of admitted signatures of the plaintiff with that of disputed signatures found in Exs.D1 to 4.

It is the contention of the learned senior advocate for the appellant that similar application was filed when the appellant has preferred RA.No.20/2023 before the First Appellate Court. But there is no explanation as to why such application was not filed before the Trial Court when the matter was pending for consideration. Moreover, even though the Regular First Appeal was filed in the year 2007, there is no explanation as to why I.A.No.12 of 2023 came to be filed only in the year 2023 i.e. after lapse of more than 16 years.

25 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

Even though the application-I.A.No.12 of 2023 was filed seeking appointment of Handwriting Expert, the appointment of such Expert would only result in calling for opinion in the form of a report. When the materials that are placed on record are not sufficient to accept the contention of the plaintiff, merely on the basis of the opinion, even if it is given by the Expert, cannot be the basis to decree the suit. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that none of these applications are liable to be allowed as the appellant was gross negligent in prosecuting the appeal.

In view of the discussions held above regarding merits of the case, I do not find any grounds for granting decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Even though it has expressed certain doubts regarding the defence taken by the defendants, none of those doubts are well-founded with pleadings or evidence on record. Therefore, such doubts are liable to be rejected. The Trial Court has arrived at a right conclusion in dismissing the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. I do not find any

26 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48314 RFA No. 91 of 2007

HC-KAR

reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer the above

point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) I.A.Nos.1 to 8 of 2024 and I.A.No.12 of 2023 are

dismissed.

(ii) The appeal is dismissed with costs .

(iii) The judgment and decree dated 04.09.1993 passed in O.S.No.29/1985 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, is hereby confirmed.

Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1