JUDGMENT : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by plaintiffs against the common judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012, passed in O.S. Nos.714/2008 and 715/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli (for short ‘the trial Court’), which is confirmed by the common judgement and decree dated 21.07.2014 passed in RA Nos. 89 and 90 of 2012 respectively on the file III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’). 2. Suit in OS No.714/2002 is originally filed by one Shri Shadaksharayya S/o Charantayya Chikkamath, while suit in OS No.715/2025 is originally filed by one Smt. Parvatevva W/o. Basalingayya Chikmath. The suit schedule property in OS No.714/2008 is land in RS No.122/1A measuring 36 guntas and suit schedule property in OS No.715/2008 is land in RS No.122/A/1B measuring 36 guntas both situated at Krishnapura village, Hubli taluk. 3. Identical pleading found in both the plaints are that the plaintiffs in the aforesaid respective suits were absolute owners and title holders of the suit properties and that their names continued in the revenue records up to the year 2000 to 2005. That common defendant No.2 namely, Sri. Shankar S/o. Mallappa Vibhuti had created a forged and fabricated power of attorney based on which he executed deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1 conveying the respective suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs learnt about the said acts when a paper publication in Samyukta Karnataka Kannada News paper dated 01.11.2004 was issued by defendant No.1 regarding he having entered into agreement with the plaintiffs and obtaining general power of attorney for the plaintiff, to which the plaintiffs issued reply contending that they had never executed any general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 and the execution of deed of sale by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, was illegal and not binding on them. 4. It is further alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 based on the aforesaid documents have negotiated for sale of plots formed by them in the suit lands to third parties. The said persons are trying to construct the buildings on the suit land for plots. 4. It is further alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 based on the aforesaid documents have negotiated for sale of plots formed by them in the suit lands to third parties. The said persons are trying to construct the buildings on the suit land for plots. Therefore, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file above suits seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 17.12.2005 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of the alleged power of attorney dated 11.08.2000 as not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from creating any third party interest or putting up any construction over the subject land. 5. The written statement to the said suits came to be filed by defendant No.1 alleging that suits have been filed at the instance of one Mallikarjun C. Patil of Hubli, who was defendant in OS No.348/2008 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Hubli, and the suits filed without making the said person as party were not maintainable. Claim of plaintiffs being lawful owners in possession of the suit schedule properties having inherited same is denied. The allegations of defendant No.2 fabricating power of attorney and executing deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1 is also denied. It is contended that the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale on 15.07.2008 to sell the suit properties in favour of defendant No.2 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and balance amount was agreed to be paid within a period of three years which amount has been paid by defendant No.2 to the plaintiffs on 12.09.2000 and 21.08.2001. 6. That in furtherance of said agreement plaintiffs had executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2, authorizing him to have the lands converted and to form the plots. Accordingly, defendant No.2 sold the said land to defendant No.1 for valuable consideration in terms of sale deed dated 19.12.2005 which is valid and the said sale deed has not been revoked. Accordingly, defendant No.2 sold the said land to defendant No.1 for valuable consideration in terms of sale deed dated 19.12.2005 which is valid and the said sale deed has not been revoked. That the sale deed was executed after issuing a Public Notice in Samyukta Karnataka daily news paper on 01.11.2004 which was responded to by the plaintiffs as well as the President of one Kalyana Co-operative Housing Society, Hubli contending that they entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiffs in the year 1982, 1983 by paying amount before the office of Assistant Commissioner. That however no documents have been produced by the plaintiffs. To prove the same, no action was taken against defendant No.2. Despite having knowledge of defendant No.2 having sold the lad in favour of Defendant No.1 and there after defendant No.1 converting the lands into various plots by obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities, plaintiffs had never objected from the same. That Defendant No.1 had also filed suit in OS No.348/2008 against one Mallikarjun C. Patil. Even in the said suit, the plaintiffs herein have not taken any steps to prove that Mallikarjun C. Patil had become the owner of the properties. Even when the plaintiffs appeared in the said suit, they did not opt to challenge the sale deed under which the defendants had purchased the properties. The defendants, however, withdrew the said suit in O.S. No.348 of 2008, as they had initiated revenue proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. That defendant No.1 has already sold all 31 plots formed in the layout to the prospective purchasers, whose names have been mutated in the revenue records without any objection from anyone whomsoever. That if any order is passed, it would affect the rights of the said purchasers. The suit filed is beyond the period of limitation. Hence, he sought dismissal of the suit. 7. The written statement was filed on 19.11.2008, which is adopted by defendant No.2 by filing a memo dated 19.11.2008. Subsequently, it appears that one Mallikarjun C. Patil filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC dated 03.02.2009, seeking to come on record as plaintiff No.2. In the said application, Mallikarjun C.Patil has contended that he is the Secretary of Kalyana Co-operative Housing Society, Hubballi (for short “the Society”), which is the owner of the suit schedule properties, having entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. In the said application, Mallikarjun C.Patil has contended that he is the Secretary of Kalyana Co-operative Housing Society, Hubballi (for short “the Society”), which is the owner of the suit schedule properties, having entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. He contended that the said lands were acquired by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, in favour of the Society for the purpose of formation of sites and allotment of the same to its members. That the plaintiffs had received the entire consideration on 20.09.1987 in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner and they had handed over possession of the suit lands to the Society. Ever since then, the Society has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. That since the plaintiffs did not disclose the said aspect of the matter, it was necessary for Mallikarjun C.Patil to come on record as plaintiff No.2. That the suits had been filed without informing the Society. That the sites that were formed by the society have been allotted to its members in the Year 1995. 8. The said application was allowed, and consequently, Mallikarjun C. Patil was impleaded as plaintiff No.2. 9. Based on the pleadings in the original plaint and the written statement, the trial Court framed common issues, which were subsequently re-casted, which are as follows: COMMON ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he/she is absolute owner of the suit properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the GPA dt. 11-8-2000 is concocted, forged and fabricated and consequently, the sale deed executed on that basis on 17-12-2005, registered on 19-12- 2005 is not binding on the plaintiff and his/her title over the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendant no.1 and 2 to the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the defendant no.2 proves that plaintiff executed the sale agreement on 15-7- 2008 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in his favour along with the GPA on receiving valuable consideration? 5. Whether the defendant no.1 proves that he purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant no.2 for valuable consideration vide sale deed dt. 19-12-2005? 6. Whether the defendant no.1 proves that the suit schedule property has already been converted into plots and sold to others and the HC-KAR suit schedule property is not in possession of plaintiff? 7. 5. Whether the defendant no.1 proves that he purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant no.2 for valuable consideration vide sale deed dt. 19-12-2005? 6. Whether the defendant no.1 proves that the suit schedule property has already been converted into plots and sold to others and the HC-KAR suit schedule property is not in possession of plaintiff? 7. Whether the plaintiff proves that he/she is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant no.3 as prayed for? 8. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of parties? 9. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? 10. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? 12. What order or decree? COMMON ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that alleged GPA dated 11-8-2000 is concocted, forged and fabricated and consequently sale deed dated 17-12-2005 registered on 19-12-2005 is not binding on the plaintiffs and their title over the suit properties? 2. Whether the defendant no.1 and 2 prove that the defendant no.2 has dealt with the suit property under the GPA dt. 11-8-2000 and agreement of sale dt. 15-7-2008 executed by plaintiff no.1 for valuable consideration? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable in the present form? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? 5. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for? 7. What order or decree? COMMON ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant no.1 and 2 trying to alienate the suit property or part of it without having any right, title or interest over the same? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant no.3 is granting building permission to the purchasers of plots in the suit properties without proper verification? 10. Common evidence was recorded in both suits. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW1 and produced 50 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P50 in O.S. No.714/2008 and 34 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P34 in O.S. No.715/2008. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined their GPA holder as DW1 and produced 86 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D86. Defendant No3 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 11. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW1 and produced 50 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P50 in O.S. No.714/2008 and 34 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P34 in O.S. No.715/2008. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined their GPA holder as DW1 and produced 86 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D86. Defendant No3 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 11. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, answered issue Nos.1, 3 & 6 as well as additional issue Nos.1 and 2, in the negative; issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative; and issue Nos.4 & 5 in the affirmative. Consequently dismissed both suits. 12. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.714 of 2008 filed an appeal in R.A.No.90 of 2012, while the plaintiff in O.S. No.715 of 2008 filed an appeal in R.A. No.89 of 2012. The First Appellate Court took up the matters for common disposal and framed the following points for its consideration: POINTS 1. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.714 and 715/2008 proved that they are the owners and in possession of lands involved in respective suits? 2. Whether the plaintiffs proved that defendant has created the general power of attorney dated 11 8-2000? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 proved that lay out was formed in the suit lands and sites were sold to different persons and they have been o possession of the sites? 4. Whether the suit without seeking declaration of title and possession is not maintainable? 5. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to the facts of law and evidence on record hence requires interference from this court? 6. What order? 13. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the negative, and point Nos.3 and 4 in the affirmative. Consequently, it dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 14. Being aggrieved, the present regular second appeals have been filed against aforesaid common judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 15. Consequently, it dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 14. Being aggrieved, the present regular second appeals have been filed against aforesaid common judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 15. Learned counsel Shri Mahesh Wodeyar, appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, submits that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suits merely on the ground that plaintiff No.1 did not enter the witness box, and that no amendment was made to the pleadings in the plaint after impleadment of plaintiff No.2, without adverting to the fact that defendant No.2 also did not enter the witness box to substantiate his claim over the suit properties. He submits that defendant No.2, who claims to have acted under the general power of attorney executed by the original plaintiffs in his favour and who purportedly executed the deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1, ought to have entered the witness box. His failure to do so should have led the Court to draw an adverse inference decreeing the suits in favour of plaintiffs. 16. He further submits that the documents produced by plaintiff No.2, marked as exhibit ‘P’ series, clearly establish that the aforesaid Society was the owner in possession of the suit properties who had sold the sites/plots to various purchasers. Despite the production of voluminous documents by plaintiff No.2 to establish its right, title and interest, both the trial Court and Frist Appellate Court failed to appreciate this material evidence, resulting in perversity in the judgment. Accordingly, he submits that the substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals. 17. Per contra, learned counsel Shri J.S. Shetty, appearing for the defendants, submits that the original plaintiffs, who sought declaration of their title, had suppressed the material fact of having executed agreements in favour of defendant No.2 and also having granted the power of attorney in his favour. Based on this power of attorney, defendant No.2 sold the suit properties in favor of defendant No.1, who in turn obtained conversion of the land, formed a layout, and sold the sites to various purchasers. 18. Based on this power of attorney, defendant No.2 sold the suit properties in favor of defendant No.1, who in turn obtained conversion of the land, formed a layout, and sold the sites to various purchasers. 18. He submits that a perusal of the contents of the impleading application filed by plaintiff No.2 indicates that plaintiff No.2 is claiming right, title and ownership over the suit properties on behalf of the Society, based on an alleged agreement that had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the Society. He submits that, in view of the said application having been allowed, the suits as originally framed no longer existed for consideration by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court, and therefore, no decree could have been passed on such defective suits. Accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality committed either by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suits. Hence seeks for dismissal of appeals. 19. Heard. Perused the records. 20. The facts narrated above do not require reiteration. Suffice it to state that the original plaintiffs, namely Shri Shadaksharayya and Smt. Parvatevva in O.S. Nos.714/2008 and 715/2008 respectively, filed the suits claiming right, title, ownership and possession over the suit properties in themselves. It is their case that defendant No.2 fabricated a general power of attorney purportedly executed by them, based on which he sold the suit properties in favor of defendant No.1, who in turn formed a layout and sold to various purchasers. In other words, the suits as originally framed indicate that the original plaintiffs claimed right and title in themselves. However, perusal of the impleading applications filed by the plaintiff No.2, Mallikarjun C. Patil, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC dated 03.02.2009, shows that that the original plaintiffs in both suits had agreed to convey their respective suit properties by receiving the sale consideration as far back as on 20.09.1987 and had even handed over the physical possession of the suit properties in favour of the said Society. That the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, had acquired the suit properties, amongst others, in favour of the said Society for the purpose of formation of a layout and allotment of the sites to the prospective purchasers. That the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, had acquired the suit properties, amongst others, in favour of the said Society for the purpose of formation of a layout and allotment of the sites to the prospective purchasers. That the said society, after having acquired the lands as stated above, including the suit properties, formed a layout and allotted all the sites to the prospective purchasers as far back as the year 1995. The impleading applications filed by plaintiff No.2 were neither opposed nor resisted by the original plaintiffs. 21. What emanates from the above is that a mutually contradictory stand being taken by plaintiff No.1 in both suits (original plaintiffs) and plaintiff No.2 (Mallikarjun C.Patil). In that while the original plaintiffs claimed right, title, interest and the possession over the suit properties in themselves as on the date of filing the suit in the year 2008, contrary to the said claim of plaintiff No.2 in the impleading application contended that the Society having purchased/acquired the lands including the suit properties had formed the layout thereon and sold the sites to its members in the year 1995 itself. Thus admittedly original plaintiffs were neither the owners nor in possession of the suit properties as on the date of the suit. 22. That apart plaintiff No.2 even after impleading himself in the suits, claiming to be the Secretary of the Society in whose favour the suit properties were allegedly acquired, thereby completely changing the scope of the suit, did not seek amendment to the original plaints bringing on record the facts as contended in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC dated 03.02.2009. Thus there is neither any pleading nor any relief is sought in favour of the Society in the suits. The plaintiffs have failed to plead material facts defining the scope of their case. No cause of action is pleaded to claim the relief of declaration of title in favour of Society. 23. As rightly observed by both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plaints in both suits remained in their original form without any amendments. It is settled position of law that any amount of evidence without corresponding pleadings is of no consequences. 24. 23. As rightly observed by both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plaints in both suits remained in their original form without any amendments. It is settled position of law that any amount of evidence without corresponding pleadings is of no consequences. 24. Though plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW1 and claimed to have produced voluminous records in support of the claim of the Society over the suit properties, such an exercise, in the absence of pleadings, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, is an exercise in futility. As such no illegality or irregularity can be found in the judgment and decree passed to the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suits. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, however, vehemently submits that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently found that the defendants also failed to establish their right over the suit properties which should enure to the benefit of the Plaintiffs. This submission cannot be accepted that as the plaintiffs cannot take advantage any weakness of defendants, more particularly when the Plaintiffs themselves failed even to plead their case let alone leading any evidence thereon. When the plaintiffs have failed to plead and prove regarding their title or possession over the suit property, a decree for declaration, as sought by the original plaintiffs cannot be granted. 26. Accordingly, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.