Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 656 (KAR)

G. KRISHNAPPA v. SYED IRFAN AHMED

2013-06-10

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2013
JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.-These two appeals by the common appellant are directed against the common judgment and decree in O.S. No. 11324/1996 and O.S. No. 3192/1995 dismissing the suit of the appellant in O.S. No. 11324/1996 and decreeing the suit of the respondent-R. Narayanappa in O.S. No. 3192/1995. 2. O.S. No. 11324/1996 was filed by the common appellant-G. Krishnappa against two Defendants namely, Syed Irfan Ahmed and R. Narayanappa, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; (ii) Declaring the sale deed executed by D1 in favour of D2 vide Doc. No. 741/1993-94 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram, Bangalore, as null and void; (iii) Declaring that the illegal G.P.A. registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, vide No. 1019/82-83 in Volume 273 in book IV pages 23-24 dated 01.02.1993 by forging the signature of the plaintiff by D1 as null and void; (iv) Permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff against Defendant No. 2 not to alienate the suit schedule property; (v) For the cost of suit; (vi) Any other remedies that may be required in the instant case. 3. O.S. No. 11324/1996 came to be filed by R. Narayanappa against G. Krishnappa seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the said G. Krishnappa from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The subject matter of both the suit being one and the same is the land bearing Khaneshmari No. 85/B, of Thanisandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore-45, measuring East-West: 76 ft. and North-South 27.6 ft. 4. The subject matter of both the suit being one and the same is the land bearing Khaneshmari No. 85/B, of Thanisandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore-45, measuring East-West: 76 ft. and North-South 27.6 ft. 4. In O.S. No. 11324/1996, the plaintiff-G. Krishnappa, inter alia contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired title to the same under the registered sale deed dated 13.08.1982,executed by one Hanuma @ Komma and since the date of the sale in his favour, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same; that Katha in respect of the said property was also made-out in his name and he has been paying taxes to the concerned authorities; that Defendant No. 1-Syed Irfan Ahmed by taking advantage of the plaintiff's weakness towards alcohol and by hatching conspiracy, convinced the plaintiff that he is going to purchase the suit schedule property and on that false pretext, Defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff and subsequently, by gaining confidence of the plaintiff got the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour; that on coming to know of the motive on the part of Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff questioned Defendant No. 1 about his illegal act and immediately refunded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff and subsequently, by gaining confidence of the plaintiff got the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour; that on coming to know of the motive on the part of Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff questioned Defendant No. 1 about his illegal act and immediately refunded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Defendant No. 1 in the year 1986; that after accepting the said amount, Defendant No. 1 destroyed the original General Power of Attorney made in his favour and also expressed that no longer he is interested in purchasing the property and that the plaintiff can sell the same to whomsoever he likes; that the plaintiff was shocked and surprised to know when he went to obtain mutation and katha assessment from the Secretary, Village Panchayat, Thanisandra, that mutation in respect of the schedule property has been changed in the name of Defendant No. 2-R. Narayanappa on 20.10.1996; that on coming to know of the same, the plaintiff realized that the Defendant No. 1 has deceived him and learnt that by forging a General Power of Attorney, Defendant No. 1 has executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 2, pursuant to which the name of Defendant No. 2-R. Narayanappa came to be entered in the records; that at no point of time, he executed the registered Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1, as such, Defendant No. 2 has not derived any title to the suit schedule property under the sale deed purported to have been executed by Defendant No. 1-Syed Irfan Ahmed in favour of Defendant No. 2-R. Narayanappa. With these allegations, the plaintiff sought for the reliefs as noted above. 5. In O.S. No. 11324/1996 on service of suit summons, both the Defendants entered their appearance and filed their written statement. Defendant No. 1- Syed Irfan Ahmed admitting the case of the plaintiff that he (plaintiff) was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property contended that the plaintiff-G. Krishnappa approached the 1st defendant on 25.04.1985 and offered to sell the suit schedule property and that after negotiations, it was agreed that the suit schedule property should be sold to the 1st defendant for Rs. 20,500/- and accordingly, the 1st defendant paid the entire sale consideration on 25.04.1985 and to that effect an agreement was entered into and the plaintiff also executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st defendant on the same day. He further contended that on his request, the plaintiff executed another General Power of Attorney on 01.02.1993 in his favour and got the same registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar appointing him as his agent to do all acts in respect of the suit schedule property and pursuant to the said Power of Attorney, he executed the sale deed dated 06.05.1993 in favour of the 2nd defendant for consideration of Rs. 65,000/- and delivered possession of the same to the 2nd defendant. He contended that the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and that Defendant No. 2 has become the owner of the same. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No. 2, in his written statement reiterated the statement made by the 1st defendant and in addition, he contended that subsequent to sale of the property in his favour, he built the cattle shed in the suit schedule property in an area of 10x20 ft. for the purpose of tethering cattle and his name was also mutated in the concerned records. He further contended that since the plaintiff G. Krishnappa tried to demolish the cattle shed in the suit schedule property, he (2nd defendant-R. Narayanappa) filed suit in O.S. 3192/1995 against G. Krishnappa and also obtained an order of temporary injunction. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Plaint in O.S. No. 11324/1996 came to be presented on 11.12.1996. Plaint in O.S. No. 3192/1995 came to be presented before the Court on 15.05.1995. In O.S. 3192/1995, the plaintiff-R. Narayanappa contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 06.05.1993 executed by said G. Krishnappa represented by his Power of Attorney holder-Syed Irfan Ahmed and after the purchase of the said property, he constructed the cattle shed thereon and that the said G. Krishnappa has tried to demolish the same. 8. 8. G. Krishnappa, the sole defendant in O.S. No. 3192/1995, appeared before the Court in the said suit and filed written statement on 17.07.1999 almost three years after the presentation of the plaint in O.S. No. 11324/1996. In the said written statement, G. Krishnappa, apart from denying the plaint averments, contended that in the year 1986, he obtained hand-loan of Rs. 5,000/- from Syed Irfan Ahmed and as a security he executed the General Power of Attorney in respect of the said property in favour of the Syed Irfan Ahmed and in spite of his having returned the money to Syed Irfan Ahmed, the said Syed Irfan Ahmed did not bother to return the document. On the other hand, by impersonation and thereafter by colluding with the plaintiff-R. Narayanappa, said Syed Irfan Ahmed has got the suit property registered in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the said suit. 9. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues in the suits:- Issues in O.S. No. 3192/1995: Issues in O.S. No. 11324/1996: (Vernacular matter not given) 10. It is necessary to note that though petition filed by G. Krishnappa under Section 24 of CPC before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge for transfer of the two suits to one Court in Misc. No. 233/2002 came to be allowed by order dated 07.09.2002 and both the suits were directed to be disposed of by the Presiding Officer sitting in CH No. 16, the same appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Presiding Officers before whom the suits were pending. 11. As the suits were pending before different additional judges of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the suits were tried independently before two different Courts. In O.S. No. 3192/1995, the plaintiff-R. Narayanappa examined himself as PW. 1 and defendant-G. Krishnappa examined himself as DW.1. They also produced documentary evidence as per Exs.P1 to P7 and Exs.D1 to D.10. The said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.06.2005. In O.S. No. 11324/1996, the plaintiff-G. Krishnappa apart from examining himself as PW. 1, also examined two more witnesses as PWs. 2 & 3 to substantiate his possession of the property. The 2nd defendant-R. Narayanappa in the suit examined himself as DW. 1. Documents-Exs. P1 to P6 and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. In O.S. No. 11324/1996, the plaintiff-G. Krishnappa apart from examining himself as PW. 1, also examined two more witnesses as PWs. 2 & 3 to substantiate his possession of the property. The 2nd defendant-R. Narayanappa in the suit examined himself as DW. 1. Documents-Exs. P1 to P6 and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. The said suit also came to be decreed by judgment dated 01.07.2006 declaring the plaintiff-G. Krishnappa as owner of the plaint schedule property and declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant-R. Narayanappa as null and void and the 2nd defendant - R. Narayanappa was restrained by means of permanent injunction from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner. Aggrieved by the two independent judgments passed in two suits, two appeals were filed before this Court in RFA No. 1856/2006 by R. Narayanappa against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 11324/1996 and RFA No. 2285/2006 by G. Krishnappa against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3192/1995. This Court after having noticed that the two suits were directed to be transferred to one Court for disposal in accordance with law as per the order dated 07.09.2001 in Misc. No. 233/2002 by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, held that the independent judgments passed in the said two suits cannot be sustained. This Court disposed of the two appeals by judgment dated 11.12.2008 by setting aside the judgments and remanding the matters to the trial Court for fresh disposal by one and the same Presiding Officer after affording fresh opportunities to the parties to lead additional evidence. 12. After such remand, G. Krishnappa, who is the plaintiff in one suit and defendant in other suit, did not lead ay further evidence. However, R. Narayanappa examined Syed Irfan Ahmed and Syed Shamsheer as DWs. 2 & 3. He also produced additional documentary evidence, which came to be marked as Exs. D.15 to D.22. 13. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court by the common judgment dated 21.12.2009 dismissed the suit filed by G. Krishnappa in O.S. No. 11324/1996 and decreed the suit filed by R. Narayanappa in O.S. No. 3192/1995 holding that the plaintiff G. Krishnappa has failed to prove that the Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed is concocted and forged. In the light of the sale deed executed by Syed Irfan Ahmed in favour of R. Narayanappa in the capacity as Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa, the trial Court held that G. Krishnappa cannot be declared as owner and the said sale deed is binding on him. In this view of the matter, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by G. Krishnappa and decreed the suit filed by R. Narayanappa. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, these two appeals were filed by G. Krishnappa. 14. I have heard Sri. K. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-G. Krishnappa and Sri. M.S. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-R. Narayanappa. 15. Sri. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, these two appeals were filed by G. Krishnappa. 14. I have heard Sri. K. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-G. Krishnappa and Sri. M.S. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-R. Narayanappa. 15. Sri. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the common appellant would urge as under:- That the judgment under appeal is perverse being contrary to the evidence available on record, as such, it is illegal and liable to be set aside; that the observations of the learned trial Judge during the course of the judgment that G. Krishnappa has not disputed his signature on the registered General Power of Attorney marked as Ex.P1 in O.S. No. 3192/1995 and Ex.D.17 in O.S. No. 11324/1996 is contrary to the pleadings as well as evidence available on record; that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and this has resulted in erroneous judgment; that the trial Judge has failed to notice the specific case of G. Krishnappa that the alleged Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed is forged and concocted and by impersonation, the same has been got registered before a different Sub-Registrar's Office than the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar; that while casting the burden of proving the said Power of Attorney the trial Court has erroneously casted the burden on G. Krishnappa and that the said burden should have been casted on R. Narayanappa who put-forth the contention that he acquired title to the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by Syed Irfan Ahmed acting as Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa and since the learned trial Judge had wrongly casted the said burden on the plaintiff, there has been erroneous consideration of the materials on record and this has resulted in erroneous finding by the learned trial Judge; that the learned trial Judge has failed to notice the application filed by G. Krishnappa in the suit seeking reference of the disputed document to the handwriting expert for comparison and report and though the said application was directed to be considered after the evidence of both the parties was closed and at the time of the final judgment, the Court below has failed to consider as to whether the prayer made by G. Krishnappa for referring the document to the handwriting expert is just and necessary; that in the absence of such consideration, the observations of the learned trial Judge that G. Krishnappa has not taken any steps to send the disputed documents for comparison by a handwriting expert, is contrary to the record and it is erroneous. He contended that, it is necessary for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction to refer the disputed document for comparison by an handwriting expert, in order to do complete as, such exercise is permissible by the first appellate Court. 16. Per contra, Sri. M.S. Varadarajan sought to justify the findings recorded by the trial Court and contended as under:- The judgment under appeal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court, inasmuch as, the learned trial Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has recorded the findings which are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence available on record therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be termed either as erroneous or as illegal; that though in the plaint in O.S. No. 11324/1996 presented in the year 1996, G. Krishnappa contended that Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed is forged, concocted and created document, in his written statement filed in O.S. No. 3192/1995 in the year 1999, has given a complete go-by to the said case since he pleaded completely a different case, which would clearly indicate that he has admitted his signature appearing on the Power of Attorney, therefore, the Court below is justified in holding that G. Krishnappa has failed to establish the allegation that the Power of Attorney is a concocted and forged document. By drawing the attention of the Court to the oral evidence available on record, learned counsel contended that during the course of the cross-examination. G. Krishnappa has admitted his signature appearing on the original Power of Attorney produced and that the suggestion put to DW.2 during the cross-examination after remand would also indicate that G. Krishnappa admits his signature appearing on the Power of Attorney and what sought to be disputed was registration of the same, therefore, the Court below is justified in holding that the Power of Attorney has been satisfactorily proved. He further contended that the evidence led by R. Narayanappa after remand would clearly establish the execution of Power of Attorney by G. Krishnappa in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed and its registration and in the absence of any acceptable contrary evidence led by G. Krishnappa, the Court below is justified in holding that G. Krishnappa has failed to prove that the Power of Attorney is a concocted and created document and on the other hand, the said Power of Attorney is proved to be genuinely executed by G. Krishnappa and in view of the execution of the sale deed by Syed Irfan Ahmed in favour of R. Narayanappain the capacity as Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by G. Krishnappa for declaration. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the judgment under appeal does not warrant interference by this Court, as such, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel also submitted that the circumstances of delivery of the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant-R. Narayanappa, would substantiate the contention of R. Narayanappa about the execution of Power of Attorney by G. Krishnappa in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made on both sides, the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are,- (1) Whether the trial Court is not justified in holding that Power of Attorney dated 01.02.1993 was validly executed ? (2) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by G. Krishnappa and decreeing the suit filed by R. Narayanappa? 18. It is an undisputed fact that the suit schedule property was originally owned by one Hanuma @ Komma, and under the registered sale deed dated 04.11.1993, the said Hanuma @ Komma sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 11324/1996 Syed Irfan Ahmed claims to be Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa and in that capacity he claims to have executed sale deed in favour of R. Narayanappa. Therefore, the title of G. Krishnappa to the schedule property is undisputed. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 11324/1996 Syed Irfan Ahmed claims to be Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa and in that capacity he claims to have executed sale deed in favour of R. Narayanappa. Therefore, the title of G. Krishnappa to the schedule property is undisputed. In the plaint in O.S. No. 11324/1996, G. Krishnappa contended that, in the year 1985 Syed Irfan Ahmed on false pretext of purchasing the property, paid him Rs. 5,000/- and after winning his confidence, got a General Power of Attorney executed and subsequently, on repayment of said Rs. 5,000/- the document was destroyed. 19. Defendant No. 1-Syed Irfan Ahmed in the written statement filed by him accepted the case of G. Krishnappa in this regard to some extent insofar as it relates to agreeing to sell the property in his favour and also executing the Power of Attorney. According to him, the sale consideration was Rs. 20,500/-. It is the further stand of Syed Irfan Ahmed that, on 01.02.1993 G. Krishnappa executed another General Power of Attorney and got the same executed and acting as Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa, he executed sale deed in favour of R. Narayanappa. 20. R. Narayanappa in his written statement pleaded his ignorance about the transaction of the year 1985. However, he asserted that he purchased the property from G. Krishnappa under the sale deed executed by Syed Irfan Ahmed as Power of Attorney holder of G. Krishnappa. It was under these circumstances, the Court below in the course of the judgment under appeal did not find it necessary to consider the case of the plaintiff regarding the transaction said to have taken place in the year 1985, stating that it has no relevance. The trial Court proceeded to consider the crucial question as to whether G. Krishnappa had executed Power of Attorney on 01.02.2013 in favour of the 1st defendant-Syed Irfan Ahmed. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is justified in considering the said crucial question as the entire dispute involves on the validity of Power of Attorney said to have been executed by G. Krishnappa constituting Syed Irfan Ahmed as his Agent and Attorney, pursuant to which, he has executed the sale deed in favour of R. Narayanappa. In his plaint G. Krishnappa has specifically alleged that General Power of Attorney dated 01.02.1993 is concocted, created and forged document and that he has not executed any such document. However, Syed Irfan Ahmed and R. Narayanappa in their written statement have denied those contentions and contended that G. Krishnappa executed Power of Attorney and got the same registered by appearing before the Sub-Registrar. 22. The Court below during the course of the judgment, has observed that G. Krishnappa has not disputed his signature appearing on the Power of Attorney. This observation, according to the learned counsel for the appellant is perverse and contrary to the pleadings and evidence available on record. As noticed supra, G. Krishnappa in his plant in O.S. No. 11324/1996 has challenged the very genuineness and validity of the said Power of Attorney. However, in his written statement filed in O.S. No. 3192/1995 he has contradicted this very statement. It is necessary to note here that the plaint in O.S. No. 11324/1996 was presented on 11.12.1996 and almost 21/2 years later, to be precise, on 17.07.1999, G. Krishnappa filed his written statement in the suit filed by R. Narayanappa in O.S. No. 3192/1995. In his written statement at Paragraph-3, he has stated thus:- "3. .......... It is hereby further submitted that it is quite strange that the plaintiff deliberately omitted in the plaint that the original owner of the suit property is the defendant herein. It is further hereby submitted that in the year 1996, the defendant herein merely because of obtaining a hand-loan of Rs. 5,000/- the said Syed Irfan Ahmed as a security made a General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the suit property, in spite of the defendant having returned the said money, the said Syed Irfan Ahmed not bothered to return the said documents to the defendant herein, on the other hand fraudulently registered the said document for impersonation and thereby colluding with the plaintiff the said Irfan Ahmed got the suit property registered fraudulently in the name of the plaintiff herein, and puts the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. 23. Reading of this paragraph would indicate that G. Krishnappa categorically admitted the signature found on the Power of Attorney relied upon by R. Narayanappa as genuine document. 23. Reading of this paragraph would indicate that G. Krishnappa categorically admitted the signature found on the Power of Attorney relied upon by R. Narayanappa as genuine document. In the cross-examination of R. Narayanappa examined as PW.1 in O.S. No. 3192/1995, he has denied the suggestion put to him that G. Krishnappa has not executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit in O.S. No. 3192/1995, G. Krishnappa has stated that he obtained hand-loan from Syed Irfan Ahmed and for the said loan, Syed Irfan Ahmed obtained the General Power of Attorney in respect of the schedule property with the condition that once the loan has been re-paid, the said General Power of Attorney will be returned to him alongwith the original documents of the schedule property. He has further asserted that even though he has repaid the loan amount of Rs. 5,000/-, Syed Irfan Ahmed, instead of returning the said General Power of Attorney, has got the same registered and by fraudulently misrepresenting him, sold the schedule property in favour of R. Narayanappa. This evidence on the part of G. Krishnappa is contrary to his contentions raised in the written statement filed in the said suit and also contrary to the averments made in the plaint in O.S. No. 11324/1996. In plaint in O.S. 11324/1996, there was absolutely no allegation regarding the hand-loan transaction of Rs. 5,000/- and execution of the General Power of Attorney as security in the year 1993. On the other hand, pleading therein was that, in the year 1985/86, there were certain transactions, wherein Syed Irfan Ahmed paid him Rs. 5,000/- and made him to execute the Power of Attorney. It was his further pleading that after receiving the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, subsequently, Syed Irfan Ahmed destroyed the original General Power of Attorney. However, during his cross-examination, G. Krishnappa in O.S. No. 3192/1995 when the signature appearing on the General Power of Attorney marked as Ex.P1 in the said case was confronted to him, as noted in the deposition sheet, at the first time, he identified the said signature and admitted the said signature to be of his. However, thereafter, he denied the same. However, thereafter, he denied the same. During the cross-examination of R. Narayanappa in O.S. No. 11324/1996 examined as DW.1, it is suggested to him as under:- "I do not know that plaintiff had only obtained a loan from said Irfan on executing unregistered Power of Attorney. I do not know that instead of returning the Power of Attorney to plaintiff the said Irfan got that document registered in sub-registrar's office, Shivajinagar." 24. This suggestion would clearly indicate that G. Krishnappa has not seriously disputed his signature appearing on the Power of Attorney. On the other hand, in categorical terms he admitted his signature appearing on Power of Attorney and to wriggle-out of the situation, he has denied the signature. No doubt, when the suits were pending, earlier to disposal at the first instance, applications had been filed before the Court for referring the signature appearing on the Power of Attorney to an handwriting expert for comparison. As could be seen from the notings in O.S. No. 11324/1996, the Court deferred consideration of the said application till the closure of the evidence of both sides and to consider the said application at the time of final arguments. However, as indicated supra, both the suits were disposed of earlier by independent judgments, wherein both the suits had been decreed. Therefore, there was no occasion for considering the said application. 25. After remand, when the matters were consolidated, as could be seen from the order sheet, there was no attempt on the part of G. Krishnappa to pursue that application and there was a half-hearted attempt on the part of G. Krishnappa to dispute the signature appearing on the Power of Attorney. He also appears to have made a faint attempt to get the documents referred to handwriting expert for comparison. However, after the remand, he has not pursued the said attempt. It appears filing of such application and also deferring consideration of the said application was not brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Court after remand. He also appears to have made a faint attempt to get the documents referred to handwriting expert for comparison. However, after the remand, he has not pursued the said attempt. It appears filing of such application and also deferring consideration of the said application was not brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Court after remand. Having regard being had to the admissions made by G. Krishnappa during his cross-examination, wherein at the first instance when the Power of Attorney was confronted to him, he admitted his signature and also in the light of the suggestions put to R. Narayanappa during the cross-examination, as observed above, there was no occasion for the Court to refer the document to the handwriting expert. The conduct on the part of G. Krishnappa would indicate that he has deliberately denied his signature appearing on the Power of Attorney though in the proceedings he has categorically admitted his signature on the Power of Attorney. Therefore, having regard to the materials on record, the Court below is justified in holding that G. Krishnappa has admitted his signature appearing on the Power of Attorney and that he has not seriously disputed the same. In order to prove the execution of Power of Attorney, R. Narayanappa has let-in positive evidence by examining Syed Irfan Ahmed as DW.2 and one of the attestors to the Power of Attorney as DW.3. Both of them in their evidence have asserted that G. Krishnappa executed Power of Attorney and he signed the said Power of Attorney in their presence. Syed Irfan Ahmed in his evidence has also stated about G. Krishnappa appearing in the office of Sub-Registrar and getting the document registered. There is no serious cross-examination to these witnesses in this regard. The evidence of DW.3-Shamsheer indicates that he is an independent witness and there are no reasons for him to depose falsely and against G. Krishnappa. 26. In the light of the positive evidence placed on record and also the contradictory pleadings on the part of G. Krishnappa and the admissions made by him, both in his cross-examination and also by means of suggestions put to R. Narayanappa in the cross-examination, it is clear that R. Narayanappa has proved that G. Krishnappa executed Power of Attorney constituting Syed Irfan Ahmed as an agent in respect of schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in holding that G. Krishnappa has validly executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed. In view of the above, there are no reasons for referring the signature found on the GPA to an expert for examination and report. There is no serious dispute that, acting as Power of Attorney holder, Syed Irfan Ahmed executed the sale deed in favour of R. Narayanappa in respect of the suit schedule property. If G. Krishnappa complains that he has not been paid any consideration, it is for him to proceed against his agent for the acts committed by him. But he cannot over-come the act committed by his agent in executing the sale deed acting under the Power of Attorney. On account of the execution of the sale deed by Syed Irfan Ahmed as GPA holder of G. Krishnappa, in favour of R. Narayanappa, the title in the property has passed on to R. Narayanappa. Therefore, the Court below having regard to the evidence available on record has rightly held that G. Krishnappa is not entitled for the declaration of his title to the suit schedule property. The Power of Attorney executed by him having been acted upon cannot be set aside. Therefore, the trial Court in my considered opinion has rightly held that plaintiff-G. Krishnappa is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint. Perusal of the evidence available on record would clearly indicate that G. Krishnappa is not in possession of the suit schedule property, on the other hand, the evidence available on record would establish that possession of the property is with R. Narayanappa. No doubt G. Krishnappa has examined two witnesses said to be neighbourers to substantiate his possession of the suit schedule property. However, the documentary evidence produced by R. Narayanappa would belies the evidence of these two witnesses. The documentary evidence clearly establishes that the possession has been delivered to R. Narayanappa and he remained in possession of the property. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in holding that G. Krishnappa has utterly failed to prove his possession, as such, he is not entitled for an order of permanent injunction. One another circumstance which belies the case of G. Krishnappa is the delivery of the original title deeds in respect of the suit schedule property to Syed Irfan Ahmed and then to purchaser R. Narayanappa. One another circumstance which belies the case of G. Krishnappa is the delivery of the original title deeds in respect of the suit schedule property to Syed Irfan Ahmed and then to purchaser R. Narayanappa. The original title deeds have been produced by R. Narayanappa. If there was no transaction between G. Krishnappa and Syed Irfan Ahmed there was no occasion or reason for G. Krishnappa to have delivered the original title deeds. In fact in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit on 03.06.2005 in O.S. No. 3192/1995, G. Krishnappa has admitted delivery of original title deeds to Syed Irfan Ahmed. This circumstance would also indicate the true nature of the transaction. 27. From the above, it is clear that G. Krishnappa has executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Irfan Ahmed and in an attempt to wriggle-out of the situation, he has tried to deny the same before the Court. However, he has utterly failed to substantiate his stand. Therefore, the trial Court in my considered opinion, is justified in holding that G. Krishnappa is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought. The trial Court is also justified in holding that the suit filed by R. Narayanappa deserves to be decreed and G. Krishnappa has to be restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by R. Narayanappa. 28. The judgment of the trial Court regard being had to the evidence available on record is sound and reasonable. It does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, there are no merits in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.