Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 564 (TS)

Mohammed Siddiq v. Munagala Rambayamm

2024-08-20

G.RADHA RANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : G. RADHA RANI, J. 1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. The judgment in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 was passed as a common judgment along with O.S. No. 1099 of 2015. The appellants were the plaintiffs. The said suit in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 was filed to declare the document number 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 in respect of suit schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property was plot No. 22, 23 and 24, totally admeasuring 605 Sq. yards covered with compound wall and having a room admeasuring 10’ x 10’ in Survey Nos. 27 and 28 situated at Upperapally Village, GHMC Rajendranagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, the prayer was amended seeking for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises. 3. The parties are herein after referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial court. 4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the plaintiffs were the absolute joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.08.2011 bearing document No. 3922 of 2011 executed by their vendors i.e. Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others. They were shocked and surprised when the plaintiff No. 1 received summons from the VII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. On verification by the plaintiff No. 1, he came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S. No. 1731 of 2011 against the plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao in respect of the suit schedule property claiming themselves as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No. 1 and the said A. Pandith Rao filed vakalath and counter affidavit in the said suit along with the documents. The plaintiffs submitted that their vendors i.e. Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others were the pattedars of the land admeasuring Acs. 3-10 gts in Sy. Nos. The plaintiff No. 1 and the said A. Pandith Rao filed vakalath and counter affidavit in the said suit along with the documents. The plaintiffs submitted that their vendors i.e. Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others were the pattedars of the land admeasuring Acs. 3-10 gts in Sy. Nos. 27 and 28, situated at Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said pattedars executed registered General Power of Attorney on 15-10-1986 thereby appointing A. Balaiah, S. Janaiah, K. Pentaiah, E. Krishna, K. Bucha Reddy as their General Power of Attorneys in respect of the above said lands vide GPA bearing document No. 639 of 1986. The said GPA was subsequently cancelled by the said Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others on 15.06.2011. One of the GPA holder, by name, E. Krishna, in blatant violation of law, executed General Power of Attorney bearing document No. 1070 of 1987 dated 03.09.1987 thereby appointing Smt. Padmaja Narender as his General Power of Attorney in respect of the suit schedule property, which formed part and parcel of the land covered by Sy. Nos. 27 and 28 pertaining to which he himself was one of the GPA holders executed by the pattedars. 4.1. The plaintiffs submitted that Smt. Padmaja Narender executed sale deed dated 30.10.1991 bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the said document would show that the said E. Krishna was the owner of the suit property. In fact, he was one of the GPA of the vendors of the plaintiffs, who were the owners of the suit property. Thus, the sale deed of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was void ab initio for the simple reason that the executant of the said sale deed bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 had no title to sell the suit property. On the basis of the sale deed dated 30.10.1991, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule property and in pursuant thereof the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for simple injunction against the plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao with a malafide intention. The defendant Nos. On the basis of the sale deed dated 30.10.1991, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule property and in pursuant thereof the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for simple injunction against the plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao with a malafide intention. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were intending to alienate the suit schedule property on the basis of the void sale deed bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991, with an intention to cause loss to the plaintiffs who were the legal owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the vendors who had marketable and valid title to convey and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 2 filed a false complaint against plaintiff No. 1, vendors of the plaintiffs and one A. Pandith Rao, with the police, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property with all false allegations. Basing on the said false complaint, the police registered a case vide Crime No. 765 of 2011 in order to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property with a malafide intention. The plaintiffs approached the Sub-Registrar of Rajendranagar and requested him to declare the said sale deed document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 as null and void, but he advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court for declaration of the said sale deed bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 as null and void. Having no other option, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 4.2. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the plaint and submitted that the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar allowed the injunction petition of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in I.A No. 1851 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1731 of 2011 on 28.12.2011. Taking undue advantage of the said orders, the defendants came along with unsocial elements to the suit property on 16.01.2012 and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit property. Thus, plaintiffs had lost possession of the suit schedule property on 16.01.2012 due to the mischief of the defendants and their men. They approached the concerned police, but the police advised the plaintiffs to recover possession of the suit schedule property through court of law. Thus, plaintiffs had lost possession of the suit schedule property on 16.01.2012 due to the mischief of the defendants and their men. They approached the concerned police, but the police advised the plaintiffs to recover possession of the suit schedule property through court of law. Having no other option, the plaintiffs approached the court seeking the relief of declaration of the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. 5. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed common written statement contending that the registered sale deed document No. 3922 of 2011 dated 22.08.2011 executed by the vendors Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others in favour of the plaintiffs was a false, bogus and created document for the purpose of the suit. The vendors of the plaintiffs were no way concerned with the title and possession of the suit property. The defendants admitted filing of O.S. No. 1731 of 2011 against plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao for perpetual injunction on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and filing of I.A No. 1851 of 2011 for ad-interim injunction and stated that the said I.A was allowed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District on 28.12.2011 and the said injunction was made absolute. 5.1. The defendants further submitted that Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others executed registered GPA in favour of A. Balaiah and others vide document No. 639 of 1986, but denied that the said Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others cancelled the said GPA on 15.06.2011. They contended that Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others had already executed GPA in favour of A. Balaiah and others in the year 1986 and the said A. Balaiah and others converted Acs. 3-10 gts of land in Sy.Nos.27 and 28 as residential plots and sold away the same through GPA holders in favor of intending purchasers and the purchasers constructed permanent houses in the lands purchased by them. In the same way, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 and since then they were enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owners and they constructed a small room bearing House No. 2-4-45/11 and were paying property tax to the concerned department. In the same way, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 and since then they were enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owners and they constructed a small room bearing House No. 2-4-45/11 and were paying property tax to the concerned department. Thereafter, the defendants got partitioned the suit schedule property between them through registered partition deed bearing document No. 3535 of 2009 dated 21.10.2009. In the said partition, plot Nos. 23 (Eastern Part) and 24 admeasuring 302.5 Sq. yards in Sy. Nos. 27 and 28 situated at Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District had fallen to the share of defendant No. 1 and the plots bearing Nos. 22 and 23 (Western Part) admeasuring 302.5 Sq. yards consisting a small room with House No. 2-4-45/11 in Sy. Nos. 27 and 28 had fallen to the share of defendant No. 2. Thus, the defendants were enjoying their respective portions as absolute owners. The plaintiff No. 1 and A. Pandith Rao, having no concern with the suit schedule property, tried to interfere on 25.08.2011 at 04:30 P.M. and tried to encroach over the suit schedule property and also tried to demolish the rooms of the defendants. As such, the defendants immediately filed the suit for perpetual injunction and obtained interim injunction order from the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs having no concern with the suit schedule property in furtherance of their malafide intention by creating false and fictitious documents filed the false suit which was not tenable in the eyes of Law. 5.2. They further contended that the plaintiff No. 1 and A. Pandith Rao having no concern with the suit schedule property tried to demolish the rooms, the defendants lodged a complaint before the Police, Rajendranagar and the Police, Rajendranagar, registered it as Crime No. 765 of 2011 which was pending against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants to declare the sale deed of the defendants as null and void. The plaintiffs were strangers to the suit schedule property and their alleged vendors were never in possession of the suit schedule property, as such, the question of the defendants trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property on 05.11.2011 would not arise. The plaintiffs were strangers to the suit schedule property and their alleged vendors were never in possession of the suit schedule property, as such, the question of the defendants trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property on 05.11.2011 would not arise. The suit was filed without any cause of action and the same was liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. 6. Basing on the said pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial: (i) Whether the suit for mere declaration of document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 as null and void is not valid under law without asking for recovery of possession? The above issue was modified subsequently as; Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession? (ii) Whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession due to their long standing possession for the last 20 years? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (iv) Whether the defendants are entitled for compensatory costs under Section 35-A of CPC? (v) To what relief? 7. The plaintiff No. 1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW-1 and got examined the attestor of the sale deed document No. 9686 of 1991 as DW-2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B22. 8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned II Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar dismissed the suit without costs on 31.07.2023. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal. 9. Heard Sri Pranay Sohini, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023. The said judgment and decree passed by the court below were contrary to law and against the material on record and probabilities of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023. The said judgment and decree passed by the court below were contrary to law and against the material on record and probabilities of the case. The court below failed to consider that Sri P. Narsimha Reddy and others, admitted owners of the suit schedule property, had executed GPA document No. 639 of 1986 in favour of A. Balaiah, S. Janaiah, K. Pentaiah, E. Krishna and K.Bucha Reddy, and all the GPAs together could only execute sale deed in favour of an individual in respect of the suit schedule property and no rights were given to the GPA holders to execute any subsequent GPA in favour of third parties. The trial court failed to consider that E. Krishna, one of the GPA holder, had executed a GPA in favour of Smt. Padmaja Narender without there being any rights as vested under the registered GPA bearing document No. 639 of 1986 as executed by P. Narsimha Reddy and others. The trial court failed to consider that Ex.A3-sale deed executed by Smt. Padmaja Narender was a defective deed as E. Krishna did not have any rights to execute GPA in favour of Smt. Padmaja Narender. The trial court failed to see that the respondents had paid vacant land tax which was also known as V.L.T. The same would categorically demonstrate that the suit schedule property was vacant land till 28.09.2006 and the respondents had not physically occupied the suit schedule premises by the said date. The trial court failed to see that the respondents’ witnesses during the cross-examination admitted that the respondents applied for electricity and water connection only in the year 2011 in respect of the suit schedule property. As such, the question of respondents being in actual possession of the suit schedule property prior to 2011 without there being any electricity and water connection, would not arise. The trial court failed to see that DW-2 failed to give any particulars of the date of the construction of the room in the suit schedule property and further admitted that he was not residing in Hyderabad, which would demonstrate that DW-2 was brought before the court only to fill up the lacunae. The trial court failed to see that DW-2 failed to give any particulars of the date of the construction of the room in the suit schedule property and further admitted that he was not residing in Hyderabad, which would demonstrate that DW-2 was brought before the court only to fill up the lacunae. The trial court failed to consider that Ex.A3 was a defective deed, as such, the respondents were claiming title through adverse possession. Having failed to prove that they were in actual possession of the suit schedule property prior to 2011, they were not entitled to take the plea of adverse possession. The trial court failed to appreciate the documents filed by the appellants in a proper perspective, and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 56 of 2014. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the judgment under challenge was a common judgment passed in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 and O.S. No. 1099 of 2015. Filing a single appeal against the common judgment was fatal. The respondents-defendants purchased the property in 1991 and constructed a compound wall and a small room in the suit schedule property. The property was assessed to tax in the year 2006. The suit was originally filed in the year vide O.S. No. 87 of 2011 before the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar and subsequently, transferred to II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and was renumbered as O.S. No. 56 of 2014. The original owners executed GPA in favour of A. Balaiah and others in the year 1986 and the GPA holders converted Acs. 3-10 gts. of land in Sy. Nos. 27 and 28 into residential plots and sold the same to several purchasers. The purchasers constructed permanent houses. The original GPA was alleged to be cancelled without notice to the GPA holders or to the purchasers. The original owners authorized the GPA holders to sell the plots. One of the agents executed another GPA in favour of the vendors of the respondents. As such, the said GPAs had to be considered as sale deeds. The cancellation of GPA was made by the owners on 15.06.2011, 20 years after executing the GPA. The original owners authorized the GPA holders to sell the plots. One of the agents executed another GPA in favour of the vendors of the respondents. As such, the said GPAs had to be considered as sale deeds. The cancellation of GPA was made by the owners on 15.06.2011, 20 years after executing the GPA. There was no whisper in the plaint whether any notice was given to the original agents and no publication was filed to show that they gave publication to the purchasers by the date of cancellation of the GPA. The entire land was sold and houses were constructed. O.S. No. 1731 of 2011 was filed by the respondents on 19.08.2011 against the appellant No. 1-plaitniff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao. The registered sale deed was executed by the original owners in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs on 22.08.2011. That is even prior to registering their sale deeds, the plaintiff herein tried to dispossess the respondents- defendants. The plaintiffs once again tried to dispossess the respondents after registration of their sale deed. A police complaint was given on 08.09.2011. All these events took place prior to the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs on 17.11.2011. The appellants-plaintiffs contended that they lost possession on 16.01.2012 and filed I.A. No. 34 of 2012 for amendment on 18.01.2012. As such, without having any title and possession they filed the present suit. The title of the appellants-plaintiffs was based on a sham document. The whole story set up by the appellants-plaintiffs was improbable. The original owners did not appear before the Court. The respondents were innocent and gullible purchasers. They were in possession of the property since 1991. The original owners remained silent for a period of two decades and registered fictitious sale deeds in the names of the appellants-plaintiffs. The conduct of the appellants-plaintiffs would disclose that they were not bonafide purchasers. PW-1 stated in his evidence that he did not make any enquiries nor obtained any encumbrance certificate prior to purchase of the property. The original owners remained silent for a period of two decades and registered fictitious sale deeds in the names of the appellants-plaintiffs. The conduct of the appellants-plaintiffs would disclose that they were not bonafide purchasers. PW-1 stated in his evidence that he did not make any enquiries nor obtained any encumbrance certificate prior to purchase of the property. Except for their oral assertion that they were in possession, no document was filed to prove their possession over the property and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amar Nath vs. Gian Chand and Another, (2022) 11 SCC 460 on the aspect that termination of agency would not affect third parties rights without notice and the principal continues to be bound by the agent’s act under the doctrine of apparent authority, until the third parties have the notice of termination. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 737 on the aspect that the burden would lie on the plaintiffs to establish their title in a suit for recovery of possession, the weakness or failure of the defendants to establish the title setup by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree. 12. The counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brahma Nand Puri vs. Neki Puri (Since Deceased) Represented by Mathra Puri and Another, 1964 SCC Online SC 313 on the aspect that the plaintiff’s suit being one for ejectment, he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title, his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property. 13. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah and Others vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (Died) by Legal Representatives and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 402 on the aspect that appellants-plaintiffs ought to have made proper inquiry to establish their bonafides before purchase of property and could not restrain the persons who were in long standing possession. 14. Perused the record. 15. Now the points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession as prayed for? (ii) Whether the respondents-defendants perfected their title by adverse possession? 14. Perused the record. 15. Now the points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession as prayed for? (ii) Whether the respondents-defendants perfected their title by adverse possession? (iii) Whether the trial court committed any illegality in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs? (iv) To what relief? Point No. (i): 16. The Hon’ble Apex court in Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 269 held that: “15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” 17. In Jagdish Prasad Patel (D) through LRs. vs. Shivnath and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 82 the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the law on burden of proof in suits for declaration of title as follows: “44. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the respondent- plaintiffs could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the appellant-defendants. The burden is on the respondent-plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The respondent- plaintiffs have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease, which the respondent- plaintiffs are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.” 18. The plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as PW-1. He filed his evidence affidavit on the same lines of his plaint. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others had given authorization to A. Balaiah and others to convert the property and to execute the agreement of sale/sale deed in respect of prospective purchasers. The plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as PW-1. He filed his evidence affidavit on the same lines of his plaint. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others had given authorization to A. Balaiah and others to convert the property and to execute the agreement of sale/sale deed in respect of prospective purchasers. He admitted that by the date of his purchase the entire locality was converted into residential plots and some of the purchasers had constructed the houses and were residing therein. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show that his vendors were in possession as on the date of execution of registered sale deed in his favour and plaintiff No. 2. He admitted that Sri E. Krishna executed a registered sale deed through his GPA holder in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property on 30.10.1991 vide Ex.A3. He stated that he was not aware that Ex.A3 was not cancelled. He stated that he was not aware that Rajendranagar Municipality assigned House No. 2-4-45/11 to the room constructed by defendants. He admitted that the defendants lodged a complaint against him and his vendors before Rajendranagar police and the same was registered as Crime No. 765 of 2011. He denied that they obtained sale deeds from Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others knowingly that the defendants were in possession of the suit schedule property. He admitted that after going through the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants, they filed the amendment petition vide I.A No. 128 of 2013 dated 01.03.2013. 19. The GPA document executed by the original owners P. Narsimha Reddy and others to the five GPA holders A. Balaiah, S. Janaiah, K. Pentaiah, E. Krishna, K. Bucha Reddy was marked as Ex.A1. The said document was dated 15.10.1986. It was a registered document bearing No. 639 of 1986 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Khairatabad. As per the said document, the four original owners appointed and nominated the above said five persons as their General Power of Attorneys in respect of the suit schedule agricultural lands admeasuring Acs. 3-10 gts. in Sy. Nos. It was a registered document bearing No. 639 of 1986 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Khairatabad. As per the said document, the four original owners appointed and nominated the above said five persons as their General Power of Attorneys in respect of the suit schedule agricultural lands admeasuring Acs. 3-10 gts. in Sy. Nos. 27 and 28, situated at Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and authorized them: (2) To receive part and full consideration amounts from the purchaser or purchasers on their behalf and shall pass the receipts of the same with their own signatures. (3) To execute the sale deed, lease deed, mortgage deed of the property and admit the same for the execution thereof. (4) Authorized to present themselves in the Sub- Registrar Office, District Registrar Office, Tahsil/Revenue/Mandal/Panchayat/Collector/Electricity Board and all other offices or orders. (7) Authorized to sell the said property and to execute the registered documents before the registering authority or before any other office or offices and to receive consideration and to issue receipts and acknowledgment. (8) To enter into agreement or contracts for the sale of the said property and to do all such acts, deeds and things to complete the transaction. (9) To obtain necessary permission from the concerned authorities for the sale of the said property either in full or part as the case may be. 20. Thus, the original owners authorized the GPA holders to sell the property and execute registered sale deeds before the registering authority. 21. Ex.A2 dated 01.09.1987 was the copy of the registered GPA document executed by the one of the GPA holders Sri E. Krishna appointing Smt. Padmaja Narender as his GPA. Sri E. Krishna stated that he was the sole and absolute owner and possessor of the plots bearing Nos. 22, 23 and 24 in Sy.Nos.27 and 28 admeasuring 605 Sq. yards situated at Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and he authorized the GPA to sell the said property in his name and on his behalf either full or in part, as the case may be, and to receive any advance amount or balance sale consideration and to sign any sale deeds or any other deeds of transfer and to present the same in his name or on his behalf regarding the schedule property before the registering authority. 22. 22. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Sri E. Krishna was one of the GPA holders and no right was vested in him to execute GPA in favour of Smt. Padmaja Narender and the document executed by Smt. Padmaja Narender under Ex.A3 was a defective deed as Sri E. Krishna was not having any right to execute GPA in favour of Smt. Padmaja Narender. 23. Ex.A3 was the copy of registered sale deed bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 executed by Sri E. Krishna represented by his GPA holder Smt. Padmaja Narender in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respective of the suit schedule property. 24. However, no steps were taken by the original owners to cancel the documents marked under Exs.A2 and A3. They cancelled the document marked under Ex.A1 only on 15.06.2011 i.e. after more than 25 years after executing the GPA in favour of five persons including Sri E. Krishna as one of the GPA holders. The document marked under Ex.A4-cancellation of GPA also would not disclose any reasons for cancelling the GPA. There was no pleading in the plaint whether any notice was issued to the GPA holders before cancelling the GPA or any notice was issued to the public at large about the cancellation of the GPA. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amar Nath vs. Gian Chand and Another (supra), while considering whether a sale deed by a power of attorney holder when he had a duty to not sell property below Rs.55,000/- wherein he sold the property at Rs.33,000/- held that there was no restriction on price in power of attorney which was found to have not been cancelled and property sold at Rs.33,000/- by power of attorney holder would not invalidate the sale deed. 26. While considering Sections 201 and 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 pertaining to termination of agency held that where an agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject of the agency, in the absence of an express contract, the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of agent’s interest. In such cases, the agency would be clearly irrevocable. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that: 73. In such cases, the agency would be clearly irrevocable. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that: 73. Since, it is not disputed that the plaintiff did execute the power of attorney, empowering the second defendant to sell the property and it is further not in dispute that the second defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of the first defendant, the only question which arises is whether the power of attorney was cancelled before the execution of the sale deed on 28.04.1987. Undoubtedly, the further question would be whether the cancellation was effected in a valid and legal manner and finally, whether it was made known to not only to the second defendant but also to the first defendant. 74. Section 201 of the Contract Act, dealing with termination of agency, declares that an agency can be terminated by the principal revoking the authority of the agent. An exception to the power of principal to revoke the agency is found in Section 202 of the Contract Act, which provides that where an agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject of the agency, in the absence of an express contract, the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of the agent’s interest. In such cases, the agency would be clearly irrevocable. Section 207 of the Contract Act declares that revocation may be express or may be implied in the conduct of that principal or agent, respectively. 75. Section 208 of the Contract Act, 1872, which deals with the time when termination of the agent’s agency takes effect, reads as follows: “208. When termination of agent’s authority takes effect as to agent, and as to third persons - The termination of the authority of an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it becomes known to him, or, so far as regards third persons, before it becomes known to them.” 76. We may notice the following view from Pollock and Mulla, The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 14th Edn: “Termination not to affect third parties without notice: Termination becomes effective only when it comes to the knowledge of the affected party. We may notice the following view from Pollock and Mulla, The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 14th Edn: “Termination not to affect third parties without notice: Termination becomes effective only when it comes to the knowledge of the affected party. Even if the agent is aware of the revocation, it does not affect third parties who in good faith enter into contract with the agent and in ignorance of the revocation; they are protected; such provision is in interest of commerce: Where the principal has terminated the agency, or the agency has been terminated by happening of events, the principal continues to be bound by the agents act under the doctrine of apparent authority, until the third parties have notice of the termination. Time from which termination operates. Revocation by the act of the principal takes effect as to the agent from the time when the revocation is made known to him; and as to third persons when it is made known to them, and not before.” 28. Thus, the termination of agency comes into effect only when it comes to the knowledge of the effected party and even though the principal has terminated the agency the principal continues to be bound by the agent’s act till the third parties have notice of the termination. The GPAs had executed the sale deeds in favour of third parties before the date of cancellation of their GPA. Thus, the sale deeds executed by the GPAs to third parties would not be considered as void or invalid documents. The cancellation of GPA by the original owners would not effect the rights of the third parties on whom sale deeds were executed by the GPAs. 29. Though, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that one of the GPA holder could not execute any subsequent GPA in favour of third parties, no restrictions were imposed on the GPA holders by the principals not to execute any other GPAs or not to execute the sale deeds through the said GPAs. No steps were taken by the original owners to cancel the sale deeds executed by their GPAs or the GPAs of their GPAs. 30. No other documents were filed by the appellants-plaintiffs to show that any steps were taken by the principals to cancel the sale deeds executed by the GPA holders, who had sold the properties individually, but not together. 30. No other documents were filed by the appellants-plaintiffs to show that any steps were taken by the principals to cancel the sale deeds executed by the GPA holders, who had sold the properties individually, but not together. Without seeking for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the GPA holders, the principals cannot register the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the same properties. Thus, the sale deeds executed by the original owners-principals in favour of the plaintiffs are void documents and the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title basing upon the said void documents. As it is settled law that plaintiffs have to succeed or fail on the strength of their title but not upon the weakness of the case of the defendants, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in pointing out the lacunaes in the sale deeds of the respondents-defendants. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan’s case (supra) held that: “13. The suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Obviously, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that title. No doubt in appreciating the case of title set up by the plaintiff, the Court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants. But the weakness of the defence or, the failure of the defendants to establish the title set up by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions.” 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Brahma Nand Puri’s case (supra) held that: “The plaintiffs suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property.” 33. In a suit for recovery of possession also the burden would lie upon the plaintiffs to prove that they were in possession of the property and that they were dispossessed by the defendants on a specific date and were entitled for recovery of possession. But, the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the scheduled property by filing any documentary evidence. 34. But, the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the scheduled property by filing any documentary evidence. 34. Ex.A6 is the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 on 08.09.2011 against the plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao and against the vendors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence to show that the compound wall or the room was constructed by them or that they were in possession of the said property. The admissions made by PW-1 in his cross-examination that by the date of their purchase itself the entire locality was converted into residential plots and that no document was filed by them to show that their vendors were in possession of the property as on the date of execution of registered sale deed in their favour would disclose that the plaintiffs or their vendors were not in possession of the property. 35. The injunction suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs vide O.S. No. 1731 of 2011 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 05.08.2011 against appellant No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao also would disclose that the appellant No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 made attempts to interfere with the possession of the respondents prior to their securing title under Ex.A5 dated 22.08.2011. It would disclose that the appellant No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 tried to interfere with the possession of the respondent No. 1 prior to purchase of property under registered sale deed from the original vendors, marked under Ex.A5 dated 22.08.2011. 36. The conduct of the appellants-plaintiffs would disclose that they did not approach the Court with clean hands and they were not in possession of the property to seek the relief of recovery of possession. As such, the appellants-plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title or recovery of possession as prayed for. Point No. (ii): 37. Since this Court is of the opinion that the appellants-plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, this Court need not go into the aspect whether the respondents-defendants perfected their title by adverse possession. Point No. (iii): 38. This Court does not find any illegality or error in the judgment of the trial Court in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. Point No. (iv): 39. Point No. (iii): 38. This Court does not find any illegality or error in the judgment of the trial Court in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. Point No. (iv): 39. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. No order as to costs. 40. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.