JUDGMENT : This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against judgment and decree dated May 27, 2011 in O.S. No.855/2006 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard Shri. R.B. Sadasivappa, learned Advocate for the appellant. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, plaintiff initially filed the instant suit with a prayer for permanent injunction against the defendant-Society contending inter alia that suit property bearing Sy. No.13 of Nagashettyhalli village, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 3 acres 24 guntas belonged to one Devananjappa's family. In the year 1960, the owner sold 1 acre 32 guntas out of the total area in favour of one Muniswamy Reddy. He in turn sold 32 guntas of land in favour of the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated September 23, 1970. The suit property was renumbered as Sy. No.13/2. 5. Defendant - Society, started forming layout in a portion of the land in Sy. No.13/1 and 13/2. When questioned by the plaintiff, defendant replied that it had acquired title to the property under a transfer deed dated November 23, 1988. The said deed revealed that the land was acquired by BDA. 6. It is averred in para 4 of the plaint that defendant-Society had claimed right over 2 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy. No.13/1 and 13/2. It is further averred that on January 31, 1996, defendant's agents attempted to interfere with plaintiff's possession and accordingly, he sought for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction. 7. Defendant - Society, resisted the suit by filing written statement contending inter alia that the suit property was subject matter of acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire 3 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy. No.13/1 and 13/2, by the Bangalore Development Authority, ['BDA' for short]. BDA had taken possession of the land under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on April 1, 1982. It was averred that BDA had transferred 1 acre 21 guntas of land, by a registered deed of transfer dated November 23, 1988, in favour of the defendant-Society and the remaining area vested with the BDA. It was also averred that suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Based on the pleadings, Trial Court framed following seven issues : 9. It was also averred that suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Based on the pleadings, Trial Court framed following seven issues : 9. Answering issues No. 1 to 3 in the negative and 4 to 6 in the affirmative, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit with costs. 10. Shri. R.B. Sadasivappa, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that : - the plaintiff has all throughout remained in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner; - defendant has admitted that only 2 acres 22 guntas had been transferred to them. Plaintiff's specific case is, his property was not acquired and it had remained intact as an agricultural land as on date; - the learned Trial Judge has failed to notice that the land acquired by the BDA is different from the suit land; - the learned Trial Judge had framed issue No.4, as to whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff had filed I.As. No. 18 and 19 to recall the stage of the case and to permit the plaintiff to implead BDA and one Shri. C.V.L. Shastry as parties. The Trial Court dismissed the said application without proper application of mind; - the plaintiff's I.A. No.20 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit was also dismissed without giving an opportunity to institute fresh suit; - plaintiff has produced 14 documents and the same have not been properly considered by the learned Trial Judge. 11. We had requested learned Advocate for the appellant to make available the copies of written statement, depositions and exhibits. He has filed the said documents under a Memo. We have carefully perused the said documents and considered the submissions of Shri. R.B. Sadasivappa. 12. In the light of the pleadings on record and the contentions urged by learned Advocate for the appellant, following points arise for our consideration : (a) Whether plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit property? (b) Whether any interference is required with the impugned judgment and decree? 13. Plaintiff's specific case is, he is the owner in possession of suit schedule property measuring 32 guntas. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 3 have been examined and Ex.P1 to P14 marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs. D1 to D4 marked. 14. 13. Plaintiff's specific case is, he is the owner in possession of suit schedule property measuring 32 guntas. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 3 have been examined and Ex.P1 to P14 marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs. D1 to D4 marked. 14. At the outset, it is to be noted that the instant suit has been filed in the year 1996 through a GPA holder. The said GPA is dated May 2, 1994. The preamble in the Power of Attorney reads as follows : "KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS SRI. B. RAMANJANAPPA, S/O. BHACHANNA, aged about 53 Years, residing at: Menasi Village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore District, do hereby appoint, nominate and constitute Sri. H.R. CHANDRA, S/o. K.H. Gowda, aged about 30 Years, residing at: No.2, A.E.C.S. III Stage, Near Armugam Marbels, Ist Cross, Nagashettahalli, Bangalore-560 094. as my true lawful General Power of Attorney in my name and on my own behalf to do any one or more of the acts, deeds and things hereinafter mentioned in respect of the land described in the Schedule. WHEREAS I am the Absolute Owner of the land detailed in the Schedule Vide 23-9-70 and the Property showing in my name in the records of the sub-registrar by Registration No.2120/70-71, Whereas the said property is not in any way encumbered, whereas nobody has any right/interest/claim whatsoever in the lands. " (Emphasis Supplied) 15. The Power of Attorney does not indicate any reason as to why he has authorized his power agent to prosecute the case. Initially, the suit was filed with a prayer for permanent injunction. After nearly two years, prayer for declaration was added. 16. Defendant's specific case is, the entire area measuring 3 acres 21 guntas was acquired by the BDA and it took possession of the land on April 1, 1982 and transferred 1 acre 21 guntas in its favour. The possession of the remaining land remained with the BDA. 17. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the Power of attorney was given to him prior to the date of filing the suit. The Power of attorney is dated May 2, 1994. P.W.1's age is mentioned as 30 years in the Power of Attorney, which means, he was born in 1964. The suit has been filed on February 2, 1995. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the Power of attorney was given to him prior to the date of filing the suit. The Power of attorney is dated May 2, 1994. P.W.1's age is mentioned as 30 years in the Power of Attorney, which means, he was born in 1964. The suit has been filed on February 2, 1995. In his cross-examination dated October 28, 2009, P.W.1 has stated that he knew about the suit schedule property since September 1970. Reckoned from his year of birth, P.W.1 would be 6 years old in 1970. It is surprising to note that a child aged 6 years whose relation with the owner of the land is not described, had knowledge about the land in question. The owner of the land has not specified any reason for appointing the Power agent. He has not stepped into the witness box. Hence, the testimony of P.W.1 is not reliable. 18. Further, Ex.D4 is the Notification dated April 1, 1982 issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it has been published in the gazette on July 29, 1982. The Notification shows that the possession of the lands mentioned therein, was taken by the BDA. The specific pleading in paragraph No.2 of the plaint is that the land bearing Sy. No.13 was measuring 3 acres 24 guntas. The said land is mentioned at serial No.56 of the Notification. 19. Plaintiff has also pleaded in paragraph No.4 of the plaint that according to the defendant, land was transferred in favour of the defendant under the Transfer deed dated November 23, 1988. Admittedly, P.W.1 has come into the picture in 1995 and initially filed the suit for injunction and subsequently amended the prayer to include declaration. This amply proves that P.W.1 had no knowledge about the facts of the case and plaintiff has filed a speculative suit. 20. While considering I.As. No.16 to 19, the learned Trial judge has recorded that the said I.As. were filed when the suit was posted for judgment. He has rightly followed the authority in Rabiya Bi Kassim M Vs. The Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd., ILR 2004 KAR 2215, and correctly held that the same did not merit any consideration. 20. While considering I.As. No.16 to 19, the learned Trial judge has recorded that the said I.As. were filed when the suit was posted for judgment. He has rightly followed the authority in Rabiya Bi Kassim M Vs. The Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd., ILR 2004 KAR 2215, and correctly held that the same did not merit any consideration. Subsequently, plaintiff has filed I.A. No.20 under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit by including a private person by name C.V.L. Shastry and the BDA as defendants. On consideration of this application, the learned Trial Judge has recorded that the defendant had pleaded in his written statement about non-joinder of necessary parties in 1998 and the issues were framed in 1999. But the I.A. No.20 was filed on 23.04.2011 i.e. after 13 years from the date of filing of the written statement, when the suit was posted for judgment without making out any case for consideration of the said I.A. and accordingly dismissed the same. 21. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly it is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondents.