JUDGMENT : This is a plaintiff’s appeal. Since the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha is dead during the pendency of the original suit, her legal representatives who are said to be the husband and children of the deceased plaintiff were brought on record. The suit of the plaintiffs in the Court of the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (C.C.H.No.8) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) in O.S.No.3575/2013 was for the relief of permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant or any one claiming through him from interfering in the alleged lawful possession of their immovable property with respect to Site bearing No.303, measuring 30 ft. x 37 ft. and situated at 6th Cross, Shreenagar, Benglauru, more fully described in the schedule of the suit property in the plaint. The said suit came to be dismissed as devoid of merit by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 17-04-2017. Challenging the same, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff are before this Court, through this appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiffs in the Trial Court is that, the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha, who is the wife of the appellant No.1 and mother of appellants No.2 and 3, purchased the suit schedule property from the original allottee of the said property by name Sri.H.R. Gopinath, under a registered Sale Deed dated 24-04-2013. The vendor of the property Sri.H.R. Gopinath was allotted the said property by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter for short referred to as "the BDA") under a lease cum sale agreement on Dt. 27-05-1970. Subsequently, a registered Sale Deed also came to be executed in his favour on Dt.16-04-2013. The municipal records including khatha of the property were also made in his favour. In the meantime, the original plaintiff had entered into an agreement for purchase of the said property with the said Sri.H.R. Gopinath on Dt. 04-07-2012 and had paid an advance partial consideration of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as such, after paying the balance consideration of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, a registered Sale Deed came to be executed in favour of the original plaintiff on Dt. 24-04-2013. Thereafter the municipal records were transferred and made in the name of the original plaintiff, as such, since then, she (the original plaintiff- Smt. Anitha) has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 24-04-2013. Thereafter the municipal records were transferred and made in the name of the original plaintiff, as such, since then, she (the original plaintiff- Smt. Anitha) has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further the contention of the plaintiffs in their plaint that, on Dt. 26-04-2013 and Dt. 28-04-2013, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, though having no manner of right, title, much less, possession over the same. Once again, on the date 11-05-2013, again on the date 15-05-2013, the defendant once again approached the property along with his followers and rowdy elements and attempted to disturb the plaintiffs' peaceful possession. This constrained the plaintiffs to institute the present suit against the defendant in the Trial Court. 3. As could be seen from the Trial Court records, on issuance of suit summons, the defendant though appeared through his counsel, but did not file his Written Statement. Later, his counsel also filed a retirement memo from appearing for the defendant in the matter, on the ground that there was no instructions to him from his client as to how to proceed further in the matter. The said retirement memo was accepted by the Trial Court. In the meantime, the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha passed away and the present appellants as the husband and children of the deceased original plaintiff came on record as legal representatives of the original plaintiff -Smt. Anitha. 4. In the light of the above, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence led by the plaintiffs, wherein the husband of the plaintiff, who is the legal representative No.1 (appellant No.1) - Sri.B.S. Somashekar got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether plaintiffs are established their lawful possession over suit schedule property and interference by the defendant? 2. What decree or order?" The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence placed before it, vide its judgment and decree dated 17-04-2017 while answering point No.1 in the negative, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha. 5. Even in this appeal also, the respondent who was original defendant in the Trial Court since has remained absent, in spite of service of notice upon him, this Court, in the best interest of justice, appointed learned counsel Smt. K.M. Archana as Amicus Curiae for the respondent herein (defendant). 6. The Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the Trial Court records, impugned judgment and also the memorandum of first appeal. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are: [i] Whether the plaintiffs have proved that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property? [ii] Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant caused interference in their alleged lawful possession? [iii] Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of judgment and decree as prayed for? [iv] Whether the judgment and decree under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 10. The husband of the deceased original plaintiff (appellant No.1 herein) - Sri.B.S. Somashekar got himself examined as PW-1, who, in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contentions taken up by the plaintiffs in the plaint. In support of the contention that the property was purchased by the original plaintiff -Smt. Anitha from her vendor - Sri.H.R. Gopinath, he (PW-1) got marked registered Sale Deed dated 24-04-2013 as Ex.P-3. He also produced a 'Nil' Encumbrance Certificate with respect to the suit property till the date of the document (Ex.P-3) and got it marked as Ex.P-4. In support of the contention that the property was purchased by the original plaintiff -Smt. Anitha from her vendor - Sri.H.R. Gopinath, he (PW-1) got marked registered Sale Deed dated 24-04-2013 as Ex.P-3. He also produced a 'Nil' Encumbrance Certificate with respect to the suit property till the date of the document (Ex.P-3) and got it marked as Ex.P-4. PW-1 has also produced a khatha certificate of the suit schedule property showing the standing of khata in his name at Ex.P-5 and khatha extract at Ex.P-6, the reply letter about the khatha standing in the name of PW-1 and shown to have been issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short hereinafter called "the BBMP") at Ex.P-7 and the tax paid receipt with respect to the suit schedule property for the year 2016-17 at Ex.P-8. However, admittedly, these documents from Exs.P-5 to P-8 were subsequent to the date of the institution of the suit. 11. In order to show that the vendor of the original plaintiff had title in the property to pass on the same to the original plaintiff, PW-1, apart from leading oral evidence, has also produced his vendor's registered Sale Deed executed by the BDA in favour of the vendor Sri.H.R. Gopinath at Ex.P-9. The khatha certificate standing in the name of the vendor to the original plaintiff and tax assessment in the name of said Sri.H.R. Gopinath at Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. The original plaintiff in the plaint as well PW-1 in his oral evidence have stated that the vendor of the original plaintiff had lost the original allotment letter issued by the BDA and the counter foil of the sale consideration payment receipts to the BDA, as such, he had lodged a police complaint, a copy of which was produced by the plaintiffs at Ex.P-12 and an endorsement issued by the recipient Police at Ex.P-11. The plaintiffs got produced four photographs at Ex.P-13 stating that the photographs show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. 12. The plaintiffs got produced four photographs at Ex.P-13 stating that the photographs show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. 12. The plaintiffs, on their own, have also stated that prior to the sale in favour of the original plaintiff, the vendor Sri.H.R Gopinath appears to have executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the defendant, however, the said General Power of Attorney came to be cancelled under a registered Cancellation Deed by the executant - Sri.H.R. Gopinath, in which regard, the plaintiffs have produced a copy of the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney at Ex.P-10. The plaintiffs have also stated that prior to the execution of the Cancellation Deed, a public notice was also given by the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha through her counsel intimating the general public about she purchasing the suit schedule property through a registered Sale Deed, the paper publication of that public notice is produced at Ex.P-14. Further, the plaintiffs have also stated that a public notice regarding cancellation of General Power of Attorney originally executed by Sri.H.R Gopinath in favour of the defendant was also published in the newspaper, a copy of which newspaper publication is produced at Ex.P-15. The Encumbrance Certificate, evidencing the registration of Sale Deed at Ex.P-3, in favour of the original plaintiff by the vendor Sri. H.R. Gopinath is also produced at Ex.P-16 at Sl.No.(2). 13. In the light of the above, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs was that, despite the plaintiffs leading oral as well as documentary evidence which were un-impeachable and un-contested, the Trial Court assuming certain aspects on its own and creating some doubts in its mind there being no basis for it, has proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with costs, which was uncalled for, in the circumstance of the case. Learned counsel submitted that, when there is a registered Sale Deed at Ex.P-3, evidencing the execution of the Sale Deed by the vendor Sri.H.R Gopinath in favour of the original plaintiff of the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration, it was not required of the Trial Court to probe into the matter as to the financial capacity of the purchaser to pay the cash and the mode and manner of passing of the consideration from the original plaintiff to her vendor. He also submitted that the Trial Court assumed on its own that the General Power of Attorney must have already created some interest in favour of the defendant, as such also, the plaintiffs' case creates some doubt. With this, he submits that the self-inflicted, self-originated and unwarranted and un-called for doubts germinated by the Trial Court by itself, has led into passing of an erroneous judgment by it. 14. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent/defendant in her argument submitted that, no doubt the plaintiffs have produced certain set of documents and the defendant chose not to contest the matter in the Trial Court, however, the plaintiffs' case has to stand on its own leg, in which attempt, the plaintiffs have utterly failed. She submitted that the issuance of the public notice just two days prior to the execution of the Sale Deed at Ex.P-3 creates a doubt about the genuinity of the alleged sale transaction between the vendor - Sri.H.R Gopinath and the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that though the cancellation of GPA which is at Ex.P-10 mentions about the executant of the power of attorney said to have intimated the defendant about his intention to cancel the power of attorney, there are no materials to show that the said communication was complete and it had reached the defendant. As such, the very revocation of the General Power of Attorney creates a serious doubt. She also submitted that admittedly, the agreement of sale between the vendor - Sri.H.R Gopinath and the original plaintiff - Smt. Anitha was entered into much prior to the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, which also creates a doubt in the case of the plaintiffs. With these submissions, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that when there is serious cloud of suspicion in the case of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court has rightly sustained those doubts and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who should have instituted a suit for the relief of declaration, have circumvented the process and attempted to secure a permanent injunction alone, which attempt was rightly foiled by the Trial Court, as such, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 15. The plaintiffs, who should have instituted a suit for the relief of declaration, have circumvented the process and attempted to secure a permanent injunction alone, which attempt was rightly foiled by the Trial Court, as such, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 15. It can be borne in mind that the defendant though was served with the suit summons and was being represented by his counsel, for the reasons best known to him, did not choose to file his Written Statement and contest the matter. As observed by the Trial Court, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant also retired from the matter, giving the same reason of lack of instructions from his client, which made him handicapped to proceed further in the matter. As such, the entire oral and documentary evidence that are available in this matter are the evidence placed by the plaintiffs alone. However, the Court is cautious that merely because the defendant did not choose to contest the matter or failed to contest the matter, by that itself, the plaintiffs would not be entitled for an order of decree, as prayed for. Needless to say that the plaintiffs' case has to stand on its own leg. It is keeping these principles, the matter has to be analysed. 16. The plaintiffs, both in their plaint as well in the evidence through PW-1 have specifically and categorically stated that one Sri.H.R. Gopinath was the original allottee of the suit schedule property by BDA under an allotment letter dated 27-05-1970. The possession of the suit property was delivered to said Sri. H.R. Gopinath by BDA on Dt.29-06-1970. The Sale Deed in favour of the said Gopinath also came to be executed by the BDA on Dt. 16-04-2013. A copy of the Sale Deed is produced by the plaintiffs and got it marked at Ex.P-9. The khata with BBMP with respect to the suit property in the name of the said original allottee - Sri.H.R. Gopinath and the khata/tax assessment extract are also produced by the plaintiffs at Exs.P-1 and P-2 respectively. These documents which have remained undisputed, un-denied and un-contested would go to show that, Sri.H.R. Gopinath is the allottee cum purchaser of the suit schedule property by the BDA. These documents which have remained undisputed, un-denied and un-contested would go to show that, Sri.H.R. Gopinath is the allottee cum purchaser of the suit schedule property by the BDA. In that circumstance, the Trial Court which expected the plaintiffs to produce the allotment letter of the site said to have been issued by the BDA to the said Sri.H.R. Gopinath goes to the background and it was uncalled for. In that connection, the police complaint filed about the missing of the allotment letter and the counter foil of the consideration challan at Ex.P-12 and the police acknowledgment treating it as NCR which is produced at Ex.P-11 were not considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, one of the reasons given by the Trial Court for refusing the plaintiffs, the relief they sought for, is not acceptable. 17. The registered Sale Deed executed by the said Sri.H.R. Gopinath in favour of the original plaintiff –Smt.Anitha which is at Ex.P-3 would go to show that the plaintiff Smt. Anitha purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor Sri. H.R. Gopinath for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The very same document also acknowledges the receipt of the said consideration by vendor Sri. H.R. Gopinath. The said document is a registered document registered in accordance with law. That being the case, it was also not called for of the Trial Court to suspect the passing of consideration from the purchaser (plaintiff-Smt. Anitha) to her vendor one Sri. H.R. Gopinath of Rs.25,00,000/- as sale consideration towards the suit schedule property. Needless to say that the defendant since has remained absent and did not even file his Written Statement in the matter, there was no opposition to the pleading as well as to the evidence, both oral and documentary placed before the Trial Court by the plaintiffs. However, independent of the objection also, the plaintiffs could able to place before the Court both oral and documentary evidence to the effect that, the original plaintiff was the lawful purchaser of the suit schedule property from her vendor for a valuable sale consideration. The ‘nil’ Encumbrance Certificate at Ex.P-4 goes to show that as on the date of the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the original plaintiff, there was no encumbrance on the suit schedule property. The ‘nil’ Encumbrance Certificate at Ex.P-4 goes to show that as on the date of the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the original plaintiff, there was no encumbrance on the suit schedule property. Though the plaintiffs have not stated about the making of khata in the name of the purchaser Smt. Anitha with respect to the suit property, however, the plaintiffs have produced the khatha Certificate, khatha extract, khatha reply letter and a tax paid receipt at Exs.P-5 to P-8 to show that the khatha of the suit schedule property was made in the name of PW-1, who is the husband of the original purchaser Smt. Anitha. Since it is the evidence of PW-1 that, after the death of original purchaser Smt. Anitha, PW-1 and her children as legal representative of the deceased Smt. Anitha, have succeeded to the property as per Exs.P-5 to P-9, though they are subsequent in date from the date of filing the original suit, still, cannot be totally ignored of their value. 18. The original, deceased plaintiff - Smt. Anitha herself was open and clear in bringing to the notice of the Trial Court about the execution of the General Power of Attorney by Sri.H.R. Gopinath in favour of the defendant and its subsequent cancellation under a registered Cancellation Deed as per Ex.P-10. The said document at Ex.P-10 and a public notice issued by the vendor Sri.H.R. Gopinath through his counsel in a newspaper publication intimating the cancellation of the GPA as could be seen from Ex.P-15 would clearly go to show that before the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the original plaintiff, which is at Ex.P-3, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) said to have been executed by the original allottee one Sri.H.R. Gopinath had stood cancelled in a manner known to law. As such, though the learned Amicus Curiae vehemently contended that the said cancellation of GPA just two days prior to the execution of the Sale Deed would create a doubt in the case of the plaintiffs, is not acceptable. As such, though the learned Amicus Curiae vehemently contended that the said cancellation of GPA just two days prior to the execution of the Sale Deed would create a doubt in the case of the plaintiffs, is not acceptable. Needless to reiterate that the defendant who had every opportunity to appear and contest the matter including bringing to the notice of the Court of his alleged vested interest in the suit schedule property, if any, by virtue of the General Power of Attorney or the alleged irregularity, if any, in the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, since has chosen not to contest the matter including deciding not to file the Written Statement, the Court cannot assume certain aspects which the facts of the case would not warrant. However, the Trial Court, without noticing these aspects, merely because the defendant was shown to be a GPA holder prior to the sale of the property in favour of the original plaintiff including the fact that the said General Power of Attorney has come to an end under a registered document as per Ex.P-10 and a public notice was also given, once again, on its own assuming the possibility of there being in existence some interest in favour of the alleged Attorney (defendant) in the suit schedule property and on its own introduced one more unsustainable doubt in the case of the plaintiffs. It is these doubts which made the Trial Court to answer the issue framed by it in the negative holding that, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit property, resulting in the dismissal of the suit. The said finding of the Trial Court which has nothing but attracted and created certain un-warranted and un-called for doubts and suspected the case of the plaintiffs, is now found to be an erroneous finding. On the other hand, the evidence, both oral and documentary, led by the plaintiffs, as lawful purchasers of the suit schedule property, are in possession of the suit schedule property and have been paying the necessary municipal taxes by getting the municipal records also in their favour, proves that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the evidence, both oral and documentary, led by the plaintiffs, as lawful purchasers of the suit schedule property, are in possession of the suit schedule property and have been paying the necessary municipal taxes by getting the municipal records also in their favour, proves that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The un-denied pleading of the plaintiffs as well the evidence of PW-1 that the defendant, on more than one occasion subsequently on the dates 26-04-2013, 28-04-2013, 11-05-2013 and 15-05-2013, attempted to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property, also proves the alleged interference made by the defendant in the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiffs. This warrants interference by this Court in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and requires decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] The Regular First Appeal is allowed; [ii] The impugned judgment and decree dated 17-04-2017, passed by the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (C.C.H.No.8), in O.S.No.3575/2013, is set aside; [iii] The suit of the plaintiffs in OS.No.3575/2013 in the Court of the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (C.C.H.No.8), for the relief of permanent injunction is decreed with costs; [iv] The defendant, his agents, servants or anybody acting on his behalf are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. [v] Draw the decree accordingly. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of as having become infructuous. This Court, while acknowledging the service rendered by Smt.K.M. Archana, the learned Amicus Curiae for the defendant/respondent herein, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs.4,000/- to her payable by the Registry. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court records to the concerned Court, immediately.