JUDGMENT : Both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the Court of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH : 15) at Bengaluru City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Trial Court”) dated 21-06-2014. R.F.A.No.1318/2014 is filed against the common judgment in O.S.No.133/2007 by the defendants therein, whereas R.F.A.No.1317/2014 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008. O.S.No.133/2007 was a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent in R.F.A.No.1318/2014, in the Trial Court whereas O.S.No.4045/2008 was a suit for declaration and possession filed by the appellant in R.F.A.No.1317/2014 as a plaintiff in the Trial Court. The plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 was also defendant No.9 in O.S.No.4045/2008. 2. The Trial Court by its impugned common judgment dated 21-06-2014 partly decreed O.S.No.133/2007 filed by plaintiff-Smt. J. Manjula and dismissed O.S.No.4045/2008 filed by Sri.A. Manohar. It is against the said common judgment, these two appeals have been filed. 3. Both the suits in the Trial Court were with respect to the respective suit schedule property which, according to both side, is the very same property. Though there appears to be some variation in the measurement on one side of the suit schedule property, however, the parties in both these appeals submit that the suit schedule property in both the suits are one and the same. Admittedly the suit property is a site said to be situated at Chunchaghatta village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 4. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 was that, the mother of the plaintiff by name, Smt. C. Roopavathi was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 29-09-2003 from one Sri. S. Sreenivasulu. After the said purchase, she got the khata (tax demand register) made in her name and continued to pay the taxes with respect to the said property. Smt. C. Roopavathi gifted the said property in favour of the plaintiff - J. Manjula (in O.S.No.133/2007), who is her daughter, under a registered Gift Deed dated 06-12-2004 and since then, the said plaintiff - Smt J. Manjula has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property after getting the khata made in her name. She is paying the taxes regularly. The plaintiff also pleaded that she put up a small house in the suit property. She is paying the taxes regularly. The plaintiff also pleaded that she put up a small house in the suit property. On 02-01-2007, the defendants without any manner of right, title or interest, interfered in her possession over the suit property. The jurisdictional Police also did not help her, as such, she was constrained to institute a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants therein. 5. After service of suit summons upon them, both the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their Written Statement, where under they denied the plaint averment that the plaintiff – Smt. J. Manjula is the owner of the suit schedule property. They also denied the alleged title earlier with the mother of the said plaintiff by name Smt. C. Roopavathi. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the defendant No.2 – Sri.A. Manohar is the owner in possession of the property and that the plaintiff – Smt.J. Manjula has illegally put up a construction in the said property. They also contended that the said Sri. A. Manohar has purchased the said property for valuable consideration under a registered Sale Deed which was executed in his favour by the holder of an irrevocable General Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi on 04-01-1986 by its executant - one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. They denied that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for. 6. The summary of the plaint averments in O.S.No.4045/2008 is that, the plaintiff – Sri.A. Manohar is the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from its true owner one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa S/o. Ragallappa for a valuable consideration through his General Power of Attorney Smt. A. Saraswathi under a registered Sale Deed dated 01-04-1998. Khata is also changed in his name and he is in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying taxes to the concerned authority. The plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 further contended that there is a notorised irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 04-04-1986 executed by the executant – Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi and a sale agreement dated 04-04-1986 which acknowledges the receipt of full payment of entire sale consideration of a sum of Rs.10,250/- by said Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa from one Smt. A. Saraswathi. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi and a sale agreement dated 04-04-1986 which acknowledges the receipt of full payment of entire sale consideration of a sum of Rs.10,250/- by said Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa from one Smt. A. Saraswathi. Those payments were made through cheques. As such, the legal representatives of the executant of General Power of Attorney Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had lost their title or right over the property. However, the legal representatives of the said Muniyappa @ Ruttappa who are defendant Nos.1 to 6 have executed a Sale Deed on 21-03-2003 in favour of one Sri. S. Sreenivasulu - defendant No.7, who, in turn, alleged to have sold the said property in favour of defendant No.8 - Smt. C. Roopavathi. The plaintiff has further contended that, due to his avocation, he was away from India for some time and his father was looking after his property. He came to know about the defendant No.9 - Smt. J. Manjula putting up an illegal construction in the property, belatedly after which he has taken steps to file the suit against her. With this, he prayed for the relief of declaration, to declare that the alleged Sale Deed dated 21-03-2003 made and executed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in favour of Sri. S. Sreenivasulu is illegal, null and void and further as a consequence, to declare that the Sale Deed dated 29-09-2003 purported to have been made and executed by Sri. S. Sreenivasulu in favour of defendant No.8 Smt. C. Roopavathi is also null and void. The plaintiff further sought for a declaration as a consequential relief that the Gift Deed dated 06-12-2004 executed by Smt. C. Roopavathi in favour of defendant No.9 – Smt. J. Manjula is also null and void. The plaintiff further sought for a declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for a mandatory order for possession of the suit schedule property to him by the defendants. 7. On service of suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 did not enter appearance. As such, they were placed ex-parte. The legal representatives of defendant No.8 and defendant No.9 entered appearance through their counsels and defendant No.9 – Smt. J. Manjula filed her Written Statement. 7. On service of suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 did not enter appearance. As such, they were placed ex-parte. The legal representatives of defendant No.8 and defendant No.9 entered appearance through their counsels and defendant No.9 – Smt. J. Manjula filed her Written Statement. In her Written Statement, the said defendant categorically denied that the plaintiff – Sri.A. Manohar was the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Apart from denying the other plaint averments, she reiterated the contentions taken up by her as a plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007. 8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration :- In O.S.No.133/2007 [1] Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? [2] Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference (by the defendants)? [3] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as sought? [4) What order or decree? In O.S.No.4045/2008 [1] Whether plaintiff proves that he is an absolute owner of suit property for valuable consideration? [2] Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants-1 to 6 have executed registered Sale Deed on 21.03.2003 in favour of defendant No.7 illegally? [3] Whether plaintiff proves that the alleged Sale Deed dtd. 21.03.2003 is null and void? [4] Whether plaintiff proves that the Sale Deed dtd. 29.09.2003 alleged to be executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 is null and void? [5] Whether plaintiff proves that the gift deed dtd.06.12.2004 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 is illegal, null and void and not binding on plaintiff? [6] Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property? [7] Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs sought for? [8] Whether defendant No.9 proves that defendant No.8 had valid title over suit property and she has executed gift deed in her favour on 06.12.2004? [9] Whether defendant No.9 proves that the court fee paid is not proper? [10] Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? [11] What order or decree? 9. A common evidence was recorded in both the suits by the Trial Court. The plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 got herself examined as PW1 and got produced and marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-15. [10] Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? [11] What order or decree? 9. A common evidence was recorded in both the suits by the Trial Court. The plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 got herself examined as PW1 and got produced and marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-15. One Sri.M.S. Ananthamurthy the General Power of Attorney holder for the plaintiff – Sri.A. Manohar in O.S.No.4045/2008 who is also defendant No.1 in O.S.No.133/2007 got examined as DW-1 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 also got examined three more witnesses as DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 from their side and documents at Exhibits D-1 to D-23 were produced and got marked. 10. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 21-06-2014 answered issues No.1, 2 and 3 in O.S.No.133/2007 in affirmative and issues No.1 to 6, 7, 9 and 10 in O.S.No.4045/2008 in the negative, issue No.8 in the affirmative and proceeded to pass the impugned common judgment. It is against the said common judgment and decrees, these two appeals have been preferred. 11. The respondent – Smt. J. Manjula in R.F.A.No.1318/2014 is being represented through her counsel in this appeal. In R.F.A.No.1317/2014, the respondents No.1 to 6, 8(a) to 8(c) and respondent No.9 were served, however remained unrepresented. Notice to Respondent No.7 was dispensed with vide order dated 30-03-2015. 12. The Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants, the learned counsel for respondents in both the appeals and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeals and the impugned common judgment. 14. In the light of the above, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are: [1] Whether the appellant herein (plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008) proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? [2] Whether the registered Sale Deed dated 01-04-1998 in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 executed by Smt. A. Saraswathi as a General Power of Attorney holder would convey a valid title in favour of the plaintiff? [3] Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 would prove that she is in lawful possession of the property as on the date of the institution of the suit? [3] Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 would prove that she is in lawful possession of the property as on the date of the institution of the suit? [4] Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 has proved that there was an interference in her lawful possession of the suit schedule property by the defendants? [5] Whether the common judgment and the decrees under appeals deserve interference at the hands of this Court? 15. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals in his argument mainly canvassed on the point that the appellant – Sri.A. Manohar is the purchaser, as such, the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Even though the executant of the General Power of Attorney i.e. Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa is said to have died as on the date when the Sale Deed was executed by the General Power of Attorney by name Smt. A. Saraswathi in favour of the appellant – Sri. A. Manohar, but, by virtue of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (henceforth for brevity referred to as the “Contract Act”), the said Power of Attorney is coupled with interest. The same remains in force even after the death of the executant of the Power of Attorney. He further contended that the Power of Attorney and Agreement of Sale since have been executed by the said Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa on the very same day with respect to a single transaction, they are contemporaneous documents, as such, they have to be understood and taken as a single deed. In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Chattanatha Karayalar Vs. The Central Bank of India Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1856. Further, contending that the Trial Court has also committed an error by holding that the suit was barred by limitation, learned counsel for appellants stated that, it is Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable, but not Article 58, as relied upon by the Trial Court. In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sopanrao and another Vs. Syed Mehmood and others reported in [2019] 7 Supreme Court Cases 76. These judgments would be referred to at an appropriate stage here afterwards. 16. In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sopanrao and another Vs. Syed Mehmood and others reported in [2019] 7 Supreme Court Cases 76. These judgments would be referred to at an appropriate stage here afterwards. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent – Smt. J. Manjula in R.F.A.No.1318/2014 in his argument submitted that, there cannot be any conveyance of suit schedule property to the appellant under their Sale Deed dated 01-04-1998, since by that time, the original owner Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had already died. He also contended that the death of the executant of the General Power of Attorney Sri Muniyappa @ Ruttappa which was on 30-01-1997 since has not been in dispute, it clearly establishes by virtue of Section 201 of the Contract Act that, by the death of the executant of the Power of Attorney, the agency gets terminated automatically. As such, any document, much less, the alleged Sale Deed 01-04-1998 said to have been executed by the alleged holder of Power of Attorney Smt. A. Saraswathi in favour of the appellant – Sri. A. Manohar is void ab initio in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the General Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4 no where whispers anything about the Attorney acquiring any interest under it. Similarly, the alleged Agreement of Sale at Ex.D-5 also does not whisper anything about the alleged vendor executing General Power of Attorney in favour of the vendee. As such, Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 being separate independent documents and Ex.D-4 being bereft of any mentioning about the attorney acquiring any interest there under, Section 202 of the Act finds no place to play. He further submitted that assuming for a moment that the alleged Power of Attorney - Smt. A. Saraswathi had agreed to purchase the suit property from its vendor under Ex.D-5, still, it would not give her any right, title or interest. As such, the Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4 cannot be called as a Power of Attorney coupled with interest. In his support, he relied upon three unreported judgments which would be referred to at an appropriate stage here afterwards. 17. PW1 – Smt. J. Manjula, in her Examinationinchief in the form of affidavit evidence, has reiterated the contentions taken up by her in O.S.No.133/2007 as well in her Written Statement in O.S.No.4045/2008. In his support, he relied upon three unreported judgments which would be referred to at an appropriate stage here afterwards. 17. PW1 – Smt. J. Manjula, in her Examinationinchief in the form of affidavit evidence, has reiterated the contentions taken up by her in O.S.No.133/2007 as well in her Written Statement in O.S.No.4045/2008. She reiterated that the legal representatives of the deceased Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of one Sri.S. Sreenivasulu on 21-03-2003 and the said Sreenivasulu had sold the said site in favour of Smt. C. Roopavathi on 29-09-2003, under a registered Sale Deed. It is the said Smt. C. Roopavathi who is her mother, had executed a registered Gift Deed in her favour on 06-12-2004. As such, she (Smt. J. Manjula) has acquired valid title and has been in possession of the suit schedule property. She got produced two Sale Deeds dated 21-03-2003 and 29-09-2003 and marked them at Exs.P-1 and P2 and the registered Gift Deed dated 06-12-2004 at Ex.P-3. In order to show that she is the purchaser of the property and in possession of the suit schedule property, she also produced two Encumbrance Certificates at Exs.P-4 and P-5; tax demand register extract at Ex.P-6, self declaration property tax paid Form No.II, house tax paid receipts and challans along with self declaration property tax details from Exs.P-7 to Ex.P-11. She also got produced a water supply bill and water tax paid receipt at Exs.P-12 and P-13 respectively. A Police endorsement dated 02-01-2007 was produced at Ex.P-14 and a Death Certificate of Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa was got produced at Ex.P-15. In her cross-examination, a suggestion was made to her that the legal representatives of the deceased Sri.Muniyappa @ Rutappa have sold the suit schedule property to one Sri. S. Sreenivasulu in the year 2003 and the said Sreenivasulu had sold the same property to the mother of PW-1, i.e. Smt.C. Roopavathi on 29-09-2003. The witness has admitted the said suggestion as true. By making the said suggestion which was admitted as true by the witness, the defendant in the said suit who is the appellant herein – has admitted the documents at Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-3. Further in the very same cross-examination of PW-1, it was suggested to PW-1 that, she has let-out the construction on the suit schedule property on rental basis. Further in the very same cross-examination of PW-1, it was suggested to PW-1 that, she has let-out the construction on the suit schedule property on rental basis. The witness has admitted the said suggestion as true. However, she denied a suggestion that she has been in illegal possession of the suit schedule property. The suggestion made to the witness that the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold to the mother of the defendant No.2 (in O.S.No.133/2007) and that a General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of said Smt. A Saraswathi, who, in turn, had sold the said property in favour of the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.133/2007 was not admitted as true by the witness. 18. DW-1 Sri.M.S. Anantha Murthy the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.133/2007 who, for himself as well as a Power of Attorney for defendant No.2 - Sri. A. Manohar in the said suit and also on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008, i.e. Sri.A. Manohar, got examined as DW1. The said witness in his Examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contentions taken up by them in their Written Statement in O.S.No.133/2007 as well in their plaint in O.S.No.4045/2008. He reiterated that Smt.A. Saraswathi got an agreement of sale executed in her favour by Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa on 04-04-1986, agreeing to purchase the suit schedule property for consideration. In that regard, apart from executing an agreement of sale, the said vendor Sri.Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had also executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in her favour. The witness got marked the said General Power of Attorney and Sale Agreement at Exs.D-4 and D-5 respectively. The witness also stated that by virtue of the said General Power of Attorney - Smt. A Saraswathi executing a Sale Deed for a valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff (Sri.A. Manohar) in O.S.No.4045/2008 on 01-04-1998, the said purchaser has become the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Further stating that after the said sale of the property, it is Sri.A. Manohar who has been paying the taxes, the witness has got produced a tax paid receipt for the year 1998-99 at Ex.D8. He also got produced a photograph alleged to be of the suit schedule property at Ex.D-9 along with its negative at Ex.D-10. Further stating that after the said sale of the property, it is Sri.A. Manohar who has been paying the taxes, the witness has got produced a tax paid receipt for the year 1998-99 at Ex.D8. He also got produced a photograph alleged to be of the suit schedule property at Ex.D-9 along with its negative at Ex.D-10. He produced encumbrance certificate at Ex.D-11 to show that the name of said purchaser is reflected in the said encumbrance certificate regarding the sale of the property by Smt. A. Saraswathi in favour of Sri.A. Manohar on 01-04-1998 under a registered Sale Deed. In order to show that the said Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had sold several sites to various purchasers in the very same manner i.e. by executing the General Power of Attorney and the agreement of sale, the witness also got produced and marked several certified copies of the Sale Deeds of different dates from Exs.D-13 to D-20. He also produced a rough revenue layout plan at Ex.D-21. In his cross-examination, he adhered to his original version. However, he did not deny that the executant of the General Power of Attorney Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa died on 30-01-1997 as shown in Ex.P15. He did not admit as true that it is the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. 19. One Sri.S.B. Chandrashekar, an advocate and a notary was examined as DW2, who, in his Examination-in-chief has stated that, on 04-04-1986, he has notorised a General Power of Attorney which was executed by one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi. After seeing the said General Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4, the witness has identified the same. He has also produced his Notary Register at Ex.D-22 and marked the relevant entry therein with respect to the notorisation of Ex.D-4, at Ex.D-22(a). He adhered to his original version even in his cross-examination also. He denied a suggestion that at the time of notorisation of General Power of Attorney, the attorney under the General Power of Attorney is also required to be present. He denied a suggestion that Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had not executed General Power of Attorney in his presence. 20. DW-3 - Sri. Sukumarn in his evidence has stated that he knows Smt. A. Saraswathi who had taken him in the year 1985 to see a site situated at Chunchaghatta village. He denied a suggestion that Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had not executed General Power of Attorney in his presence. 20. DW-3 - Sri. Sukumarn in his evidence has stated that he knows Smt. A. Saraswathi who had taken him in the year 1985 to see a site situated at Chunchaghatta village. After seeing the same, said Smt. A. Saraswathi paid an advance amount of a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the vendor of the said site Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa towards the sale agreement. On 04-04-1986, an agreement of sale was executed by Sri.Muniyappa @ Ruttappa in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi after he received the remaining sum of Rs.5,250/- through a cheque. The witness identified the said agreement of sale at Ex.D-5 and stated that he too has subscribed his signature therein which he has got marked at Ex.D-5(b). In his cross-examination, he has given some more details as to under what circumstance and in what manner, the Sale Deed came to be executed by Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. 21. Smt A Saraswathi, who is the alleged holder of alleged irrevocable General Power of Attorney was examined as DW4, who, in her Examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence, has supported the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008. She has stated that she intended to buy a site, as such, she agreed to purchase the suit schedule property, in which regard, she had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.10,250/to one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. Since there was prohibition by the Government of Karnataka for registration of revenue sites, during the said time, Sri Muniyappa @ Ruttappa could not execute a registered Sale Deed in her favour. However, he executed the agreement of sale and an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in her favour both dated 04-04-1986. The witness has identified both those documents at Exs.D4 and D5 respectively. She further stated that due to some financial commitments and legal necessities in her family, she sold the said site to one Sri.A. Manohar, i.e. the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 under a registered Sale Deed dated 01-04-1998 in her capacity as a General Power of Attorney holder of Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. She identified the said Sale Deed at Ex.D6. She was subjected to a detailed cross-examination, wherein she adhered to her original version. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. She identified the said Sale Deed at Ex.D6. She was subjected to a detailed cross-examination, wherein she adhered to her original version. She denied the suggestion that Muniyappa @ Ruttappa had, at no point of time, executed either General Power of Attorney or an agreement of sale in her favour much less on 04-04-1986. She also denied a suggestion that she was not put in possession of the suit schedule property by the executant - Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. 22. As already observed above, the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 has not denied or disputed the documents at Exs.P-1, P-2, P-3 which are two registered Sale Deeds and a Gift deed respectively. By virtue of the said documents, it goes to show that the suit schedule property was sold by the legal representatives of the deceased Muniyappa @ Ruttappa in favour of one Sri. S. Sreenivasulu on 21-03-2003 which Sreenivasulu in turn sold the very same suit scheduled property to one Smt.C. Roopavathi (the mother of the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007) under a registered Sale Deed dated 29-09-2003. The said Smt. C. Roopavathi, in turn, has gifted the said property to her daughter – Smt.J. Manjula (plaintiff in O.S.NO.133/2007) under a registered Gift Deed dated 06-12-2004. It is based upon these documents and the subsequent documents like tax paid receipts, self declaration of property tax and the water bill and water tax receipt which have all been produced as exhibits in ‘P’ series as observed above, the learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.NO.133/2007 (Respondent in R.F.A.No.1318/2014) contends that, it is Smt. J. Manjula the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property in her capacity as the owner of the suit schedule property. 23. Per contra, the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 relies upon mainly two documents, i.e. Ex.D-4 the irrevocable General Power of Attorney and an agreement to sell at Ex.D-5. The entire case of both side mainly revolves around the validity of the alleged irrevocable Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4 and the value which can be attributed to the alleged sale agreement at Ex.D-5. In case, these two documents are held to be sustainable in the eyes of law and continue to be so even after the death of the executant of these two documents, i.e. Sri. In case, these two documents are held to be sustainable in the eyes of law and continue to be so even after the death of the executant of these two documents, i.e. Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa on 30-01-1997, then, the subsequent documents, i.e. the Sale Deed at Ex.D6 which is dated 01-04-1998 said to have been executed by the Power of Attorney Smt. A. Saraswathi in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 –Sri.A. Manohar (her son) may get validity. It is because, it is not in dispute that the executant of the said Power of Attorney one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa is said to have been expired on 30-01-1997 as could be seen in Ex.P15 which is a copy of the certificate of death. The defendants in O.S.No.133/2007 have not disputed the said documents, on the other hand, as observed above, DW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the said document shows that the said Muniyappa @ Ruttappa died on 30-01-1997. 24. The registered Sale Deed at Ex.D6 which is in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 has been admittedly executed on 01-04-1998 which means subsequent to the death of the executant of the General Power of Attorney. Admittedly, the said Sale Deed at Ex.D6 though has been executed by Smt. A. Saraswathi, but she has executed the same in her capacity as a General Power of Attorney holder of Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. Thus the said execution of the Sale Deed dated 01-04-1998 is admittedly by the General Power of Attorney after the death of the executant of the General Power of Attorney (the principal). 25. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals drawing the attention of this Court to Section 202 of the Contract Act including the first illustration to it, submitted that since the said Power of Attorney holder has got her interest in the said Power of Attorney, the said Power of Attorney would not come to an end or will not stand terminated by the death of the executant – Sri.Muniyappa @ Ruttappa on 30-01-1997. He further submitted that since the said Power of Attorney though does not mention about the executant receiving any consideration under the same, it should not be read in isolation as the agreement of sale of the even date which is at Ex.D-5 is also required to be read along with Ex.D-4 since they are contemporaneous documents. 26. He further submitted that since the said Power of Attorney though does not mention about the executant receiving any consideration under the same, it should not be read in isolation as the agreement of sale of the even date which is at Ex.D-5 is also required to be read along with Ex.D-4 since they are contemporaneous documents. 26. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in R.F.A.No.1318/2014 in his arguments submitted that though he does not seriously dispute the execution of Exs.D-4 and D-5, by virtue of Section 201 of the Contract Act, by the death of the principal, automatically the Power of Attorney also has come to an end. He vehemently submits that the Power of Attorney or the agreement of sale which are at Exs.D-4 and D-5 cannot be construed as having created any interest, right or title in favour of the alleged attorney Smt. A. Saraswathi. In the absence of any interest being created in favour of Smt. A Saraswathi under those documents, Section 202 of the Contract Act finds no place to play. 27. A perusal of Ex.D-4 would go to show that the said document which is titled as ‘General Power of Attorney’ is executed by one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa S/o. Ragallappa in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi, appointing her as his Attorney holder. The executant Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa has assigned several of the powers upon the said attorney – Smt. A. Saraswathi including the power to enter into any type of agreement in respect of the schedule property and to execute such deeds in favour of such persons and to receive full consideration amount, etc. It is not in dispute that the property mentioned therein is the suit schedule property. The executant has called the said Power of Attorney as ‘irrevocable’ in its nature. Thus, as the record speaks, by its reading, the Power of Attorney appears to be an ‘irrevocable’ Power of Attorney. 28. Ex.D-5 is shown to be a sale agreement executed by the very same Sri. The executant has called the said Power of Attorney as ‘irrevocable’ in its nature. Thus, as the record speaks, by its reading, the Power of Attorney appears to be an ‘irrevocable’ Power of Attorney. 28. Ex.D-5 is shown to be a sale agreement executed by the very same Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa S/o. Ragallappa in favour of the very same attorney - Smt. A. Saraswathi, wherein he is shown to have stated that in receipt of consideration of Rs.10,250/, on 04-04-1986, i.e. the date of execution of the said document, he had handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to the purchaser to have and to hold the same as an absolute owner. Admittedly, the said document is an unregistered document on a stamp paper of a sum of Rs.5/-. 29. A detailed reading of both these documents (Exs.D-4 and D-5) would go to show that, there is no mentioning of the second document (Ex.D-5) in the first document (Ex.D-4), i.e. there is no mentioning about the executant executing the agreement of sale in favour of the attorney in Ex.D-4 (General Power of Attorney). Similarly there is no mentioning about the execution of an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of the vendee of the property (i.e. the attorney in GPA) in Ex.D-5. However, the evidence of not only DW-1 but also DW-2 and DW-3 would go to show that both these documents were executed on the very same day, i.e. on 04-04-1986, more particularly, the evidence of DW-3 Sukumarn would further go to show that he did accompany Smt. A. Saraswathi when she had inspected the site and also made payment to the alleged vendor Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa, amounting to a total sum of Rs.10,250/- as a witness to the said document at Ex.D-5. DW-3 has identified his signature in the said document at Ex.D-5(b). 30. Similarly, DW2 – Notary has stated that he has notorised the General Power of Attorney which was executed in his presence by one Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. As already observed above, their evidence given on these lines could not be able to be shaken in the cross-examination of those two witnesses. As such, it goes to establish that both Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 were executed by Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa. As already observed above, their evidence given on these lines could not be able to be shaken in the cross-examination of those two witnesses. As such, it goes to establish that both Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 were executed by Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa on the same date i.e. on 04-04-1986 and the parties therein were entitled to treat both the documents as a part of single transaction. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Central Bank of India Ltd. And others (supra), at paragraph 3, relying upon a judgment in the case of Manks Vs. Whiteley reported in 19121 Ch 735 at p.754 was pleased to reproduce the finding of L.J. Moulton that, where several deeds form part of one transaction and are contemporaneously executed, they have the same effect for all purposes such as are relevant to the case as if they were one deed. Each is executed on the faith of all the other being executed also and is intended to speak only as part of the one transaction, and if one is seeking to make equities apply to the parties, they must be equities arising out of the transaction as a whole. 32. By virtue of this observation, since Exs.D-4 and D-5 are executed by the very same executant (Sri.Muniyappa @ Ruttappa) on the very same day (on 04-04-1986) in favour of the very same beneficiary therein (i.e. Smt. A. Saraswathi) and the entire evidence placed on record, more particularly, by DW-1 to DW-4 clearly goes to show that, the execution of the General Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4 was in support of Ex.D-5 the agreement of sale, then, it has to be taken that both the documents are contemporaneous in their execution and they have the same effect for all purposes which are relevant to this case. As such, it has to be inferred that Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi as per Ex.D-4 and as a consequence, he is also said to have executed an agreement of sale at Ex.D-5 on the very same day. Even though it is observed that Exs.D-4 and D-5 were contemporaneous documents executed by Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi as per Ex.D-4 and as a consequence, he is also said to have executed an agreement of sale at Ex.D-5 on the very same day. Even though it is observed that Exs.D-4 and D-5 were contemporaneous documents executed by Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa in favour of Smt. A. Saraswathi, by that itself, it cannot be concluded that, the said Smt. A. Saraswathi had any interest in the Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4. It is for the reason that the said document at Ex.D-4 no where expressly mentions as to for what reason the executant was made to execute the said document and more particularly, the executant has no where whispered in it that the attorney has acquired any interest in the property mentioned in the said Power of Attorney. However, the said Power of Attorney Smt. A. Saraswathi whether is having any interest under the said irrevocable Power of Attorney has to be gathered from the circumstance of the case and the position of law. If it can be concluded that she had acquired interest by virtue of Exs.D-4 and D5, then probably, Section 202 of the Contract Act may come into picture. Otherwise, it would be Section 201 of the Contract Act that may come into operation. For better understanding, Sections 201 and 202 of the Contract Act along with illustration (a) are reproduced herein below: “201. Termination of agency – An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency, or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors. 202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject-matter – Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. Illustration: (a): ‘A’ gives authority to ‘B’ to sell ‘A’ s land, and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from ‘A’. Illustration: (a): ‘A’ gives authority to ‘B’ to sell ‘A’ s land, and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from ‘A’. ‘A’ cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death.” A reading of the above Sections would go to show that in the normal course, an agency gets terminated naturally by the death of the principal. However, where an agent has himself/herself an interest in the property which forms the subject matter of agency, then, the agency, cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. 33. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants herein that, since Smt. A. Saraswathi, the attorney had parted with a sum of Rs.10,250/- as a full consideration towards the suit schedule property to the executant of the Power of Attorney/vendor - Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa, she has acquired an interest in the subject property. 34. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while seriously opposing the said points of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants contended that, merely because Smt. A. Sarawathi as an attorney is said to have entered into an agreement of sale of the schedule property, by the very same vendor - Sri. A. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa, by that itself, it cannot be called that she had acquired any interest in the property under the General Power of Attorney. In his support, he relied upon three unreported judgments. The first judgment being the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to assess the legal recognition and enforceability of sale agreement and the sale of immovable property based upon the General Power of Attorney’s transfer through Will of immovable property during the lifetime of a testator, etc. In the said case, the Court, in detail, evaluated the legality of those types of transactions in the light of Sections 5, 8, 53-A, 54, 55, 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “T.P. Act”). 35. In the said case, the Court, in detail, evaluated the legality of those types of transactions in the light of Sections 5, 8, 53-A, 54, 55, 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “T.P. Act”). 35. After making an elaborate discussion, including on concept of ‘transfer of property’ as defined under Section 5 and ‘sale’ under Section 54 of the T.P. Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court, about the scope of ‘agreement of sale’ was pleased to observe at para16 of its judgment that, Section 54 of the T.P. Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. Referring to its previous judgment in the case of Narandas Karsondas Vs. S.A. Kamtam (1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 247, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it has already been observed in the said judgment at para-32 that, the personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein. Further, in the very same judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court, at para-19, made it further clear by observing as below:- “Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (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 53A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. 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.” With respect to the scope of Power of Attorney, in the very same judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that, though under a Power of Attorney, an agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said Deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor, still, a power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. In its concluding observations in the very same judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, a sale agreement or a General Power of Attorney or Will transaction does not convey any title or 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 T.P. Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. Further, in the very same judgment at paragraph 26, the Hon’ble Apex Court was further pleased to observe that, the sale agreement or General Power of Attorney or Will transaction can continue to be treated as existing agreements of sale. Nothing prevents the affected parties from getting the registered deeds of conveyance to complete their title. By this judgment, it can be clearly inferred that in execution of a Power of Attorney, much less an irrevocable Power of Attorney or an agreement of sale with respect to an immovable property, it is not ipso facto transferring any right or interest in favour of the beneficiary under the instrument, i.e. the attorney or agreement holder. The said judgment further makes it clear that in case, the agreement holder intends to perfect his or her title based upon the sale agreement, then, he or she is not prevented from getting the registered deeds of conveyance to complete his or her title. 36. The second judgment which the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon was of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Prahlad and others Vs. 36. The second judgment which the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon was of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Prahlad and others Vs. Laddevi and others reported in AIR 2007 Rajasthan 166, where the facts of the case almost resembles the case on hand. Even in the said case also, with respect to sale of an immovable property, an agreement of sale was executed simultaneously. A Power of Attorney was also executed. The sale consideration was received and the agreement holder was put in possession of the subject property. The executant of both the documents, i.e. Mr. Jain died subsequently on 21-10-1997, however, despite his death, the appellant No.1 executed a Sale Deed in favour of appellant No.2 who happens to be his wife, on 06-05-2003. The respondent being aggrieved by the said Sale Deed, filed a Civil Suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed and prayed for permanent injunction against the appellants. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. As such, the appellants approached the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the order of the Trial Court. The question before the High Court was exclusively the one like the question in the case on hand as to the validity of the act done under the alleged Power of Attorney by the attorney holder who claims to be possessing some interest in the Power of Attorney and subsequent to the death of the executant of the Power of Attorney. Thereafter, analysing the relevant provisions of law including Section 201 of the Contract Act, the learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court observed that, since on 06-05-2003, the Power of Attorney dated 28-05-1997 was no longer in effect, the appellant No.1 could not have signed the Sale Deed on 06-05-2003 as the Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Jain. For, obviously, on 06-05-2003, he had no such Power of Attorney on behalf of Mr. Jain. It further observed that the learned Trial Court had correctly concluded that on the basis of agreement to sell, the appellants could have filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents, which they have failed to do. With this, the appeal came to be dismissed. Jain. It further observed that the learned Trial Court had correctly concluded that on the basis of agreement to sell, the appellants could have filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents, which they have failed to do. With this, the appeal came to be dismissed. Thus, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court did not consider that the Power of Attorney holder had any interest in the said Power of Attorney as such, to take shelter under Section 202 of the Contract Act. 37. The third judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is, in the case of Wajid Pasha Vs. The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and others reported in 2014 (1) KCCR 676 . In the said case also, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that, a Power of Attorney gets terminated automatically by the death of either of the parties. As soon as the person who executed Power of Attorney dies, the right given to the agent comes to an end. Once the agency is terminated on account of the operation of law or by the act of the principal, the agent cannot act on the basis of the power conferred upon him under the deed of Power of Attorney. Even in the said case also, the Court observed that in an agreement of sale, the person who was put in possession only has a right to enforce an obligation which the other party owed to him in as much as no title passes under an agreement of sale. Thus these three judgments would clearly go to show that merely because a Power of Attorney holder is said to have been put in possession of the subject property or merely because the Power of Attorney holder is said to have parted with some money in favour of the executant of the General Power of Attorney, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that the Power of Attorney has got any interest in the subject property. 38. Illustration (a) to Section 202 of the Contract Act is clear and applicable to those cases where the very purpose or execution of the Power of Attorney is to enable the Power of Attorney to get his/her entitlement paid to him/her. 38. Illustration (a) to Section 202 of the Contract Act is clear and applicable to those cases where the very purpose or execution of the Power of Attorney is to enable the Power of Attorney to get his/her entitlement paid to him/her. It is in that case, the attorney holder can be called as having interest in the General Power of Attorney executed in his/her favour, whereas, in the case on hand, as already observed above, the purpose for which the General Power of Attorney was executed by Sri.Muniyappa @ Ruttappa is nowhere made clear either in Ex.D-4 or Ex.D-5. Merely because they are contemporaneous documents, it cannot be inferred that the holder of the said agreement would get an interest under the General Power of Attorney so as to over come Section 201 of the Contract Act and fall within the scope of Section 202 of the same Act. This is clear in all the three judgments referred above which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. Rather in those situations, where the sale agreement holder though was put in possession and had already parted with some consideration, the remedy available to such agreement holder would be for enforcing the contract, specifically either as against the executant or his/her legal representatives. 39. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the power of attorney holder Smt. A. Saraswathi who incidentally also being an agreement holder in Ex.D-5 did not choose to specifically enforce the agreement even as against the legal representatives of the executant of the Power of attorney. After the death of the executant of the Power of Attorney also, she simply proceeded to transfer the said property in favour of none else than her son under a registered Sale Deed, that too, for a sale consideration which was in many fold higher than what she claims to have paid to the executant of the sale agreement under Ex.D-5. Therefore, I am of the view that the present transaction, more particularly, with respect to Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 agreed between executant Sri. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa and attorney holder - Smt. A. Saraswathi cannot be called as the one in which the Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4 had created any right or interest in favour of the attorney holder - Smt. A Saraswathi. Therefore, Section 202 of the Contract Act would not enure to the benefit of the appellants. Muniyappa @ Ruttappa and attorney holder - Smt. A. Saraswathi cannot be called as the one in which the Power of Attorney at Ex.D-4 had created any right or interest in favour of the attorney holder - Smt. A Saraswathi. Therefore, Section 202 of the Contract Act would not enure to the benefit of the appellants. 40. Admittedly, as on the date of institution of the suit, the suit schedule property was in possession of the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007. Even though the defendants therein i.e. the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 contends that the said possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff (Smt. J. Manjula in O.S.NO.133/2007) was illegal and forcible, however, except a pleading in that regard and a self-serving statement, no evidence of any manner has been placed by DW-1 to DW-4 in that regard. On the contrary, as already observed above, in the cross-examination of PW-1, from the side of the defendants in O.S.No.133/2007, it was suggested to the witness that PW-1 (plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007) was not only in possession of the suit schedule property but also has rented the said property and has been collecting monthly rents. By making the said suggestions which were admitted by the witness, the defendants in the said suit have admitted the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff in the said suit (i.e. O.S.No.133/2007). There is nothing to call the said possession as an illegal or unlawful possession since the plaintiff therein has contended that she was put in possession of the suit schedule property by the vendor from whom she purchased the said property under a registered Sale Deed at Ex.P-3. 41. The evidence of DW-1 further goes to show that he went to the suit schedule property and enquired the person who was residing in the house built up there, as to who was in possession of the property and under whom and as to when he is in possession of the property. Thus, DW-1 himself has shown that he has entered the suit schedule property and enquired with the occupants therein. The said witness (PW-1) has also spoken about the alleged interference from the defendants in the suit in her lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Thus, DW-1 himself has shown that he has entered the suit schedule property and enquired with the occupants therein. The said witness (PW-1) has also spoken about the alleged interference from the defendants in the suit in her lawful possession of the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/2007 could not only able to establish her lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit, but also has shown that there was alleged interference in her possession by the defendants therein. 42. The above points have been appreciated by the Trial Court in its proper perspective by appreciating the materials placed before it. However, the Trial Court also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. While arriving at such a finding, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that, the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the alleged Sale Deed/agreement under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. However, it failed to notice that the suit of the plaintiff was not a suit simplicitor for declaration based upon Sale Deed, but it was a suit for declaration coupled with a prayer for possession of the property. As such, it is Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act that comes into operation under which, the period of limitation would be twelve years. In such a case, the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 could not have been considered as the one barred by limitation. However, even though the said suit can be treated as the one filed within the limitation period, still, in view of the observations made above, with the finding given by the Trial Court with respect to other issues since warrants no interference at the hands of this Court and the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 does not deserve the relief as sought for, the finding of the Trial Court that the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4045/2008 cannot be decreed, does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Simultaneously, the Trial Court decreeing the other suit i.e. O.S.No.133/2007, also does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Simultaneously, the Trial Court decreeing the other suit i.e. O.S.No.133/2007, also does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER [i] Both the appeals, viz.R.F.A.No.1318/2014 and R.F.A.No.1317/2014 are dismissed; [ii] The common judgment dated 21-06-2014 and decrees passed in O.S.No.133/2007 and O.S.No.4045/2008 by the learned VIII Additional Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH.15) at Bengaluru City, are hereby confirmed; Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court records to the concerned Trial Court, without delay.