JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.1762/2006 wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter is dismissed. The plaintiff is in appeal. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction simpliciter against the defendants in respect of a site measuring 50 feet × 60 feet, totally measuring 2.75 guntas, situated in Survey No.22/3 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she purchased the suit schedule property from Smt. Nanjamma, wife of late Billemane Narasimhaiah, along with her son Munikrishna and daughters Hanumakka, Lakshmidevi and Savithrama, under an agreement-cum-sale dated 26.12.1988. 4. The plaintiff has pleaded that owing to the ban on registration of revenue lands prevailing at the relevant point of time, the vendors executed an agreement-cum- sale in her favour. It is further pleaded that the vendors jointly executed an affidavit on 26.04.1989, acknowledging receipt of the full sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, and on the very same day, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further asserts that the land bearing Survey No.22/3 measures 33 guntas, and that after partition, the vendors formed a layout therein. Alleging that the defendants, who according to her have no semblance of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with her possession in February 2006, the present suit came to be filed. 5. The defendants, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. On the contrary, the defendants asserted that they are the absolute owners in possession of Site No.56, bearing corresponding Municipal Khatha No.76/1, situated at Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli. It is their specific case that they purchased the said site from their vendor under registered sale deeds dated 20.11.1990 and 02.01.1991. The defendants contended that their vendor is a Housing Society, which had acquired a vast extent of land in Valagerahalli Village, formed a residential layout and allotted sites to its members. Relying upon registered documents, khatha entries and specific boundaries reflected in the sale deeds, the defendants asserted lawful title and possession over the property. 6. The defendants contended that their vendor is a Housing Society, which had acquired a vast extent of land in Valagerahalli Village, formed a residential layout and allotted sites to its members. Relying upon registered documents, khatha entries and specific boundaries reflected in the sale deeds, the defendants asserted lawful title and possession over the property. 6. The defendants further contended that the suit site claimed by the plaintiff is fictitious and that under the guise of a bare suit for injunction, the plaintiff is attempting to encroach upon Site Nos.56, 57 and 58 belonging to the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff’s claim is founded solely on a General Power of Attorney and other unenforceable documents, and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. Both the plaintiff and the defendants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon appreciation of the entire material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish either lawful title or possession over the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana , AIR 2012 SC 206 , held that documents such as agreement-cum-sale, affidavit and General Power of Attorney do not confer title, and consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant–plaintiff. Perused the records. This Court has independently examined the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence on record. Upon such consideration, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to establish her right and possession over the suit schedule property and failed to properly identify the suit site is perverse and calls for interference by this Court? 2. What Order? Finding on Point No.1: 10. Before this Court adverts to the claim of the plaintiff, this Court deems it fit to extract the schedule annexed to the plaint. 2. What Order? Finding on Point No.1: 10. Before this Court adverts to the claim of the plaintiff, this Court deems it fit to extract the schedule annexed to the plaint. The schedule is as under: "All that piece and parcel of the portion of the property bearing sy.no.22/3, measuring 2.75 guntas, 50' x 60' feet situated at Valagerahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, bounded on :- East by: private property; West by: remaining portion of the same Sy.No. now Road North by: remaining portion of the same Sy. No.: South by: remaining portion of the same Sy.No.:" 11. This Court also deems it fit to extract the relevant cross-examination of plaintiff. The relevant cross-examination is as under: "xxxxxxx. From the last 20 years, I am not given any application to the Kengeri Municipality to transfer the katha of the suit schedule property in my name. For the last 20 years, I have been residing in Athiguppe. The suit schedule property is bounded on east: road (now) north, south and west: private property. For the last 4-5 years, I have not visited the suit schedule property. Therefore, I do not know whether anyone has built hose on southern and northern side of the suit schedule property. It is false to suggest that suit schedule property is the sites formed by Karnataka minority building owners society bearing site no.56 and 57. 10 years ago no one had constructed houses around the suit schedule property. About 3 years ago, someone had constructed a house. Probably that house comes behind my site. It may be true that about 11 yeas ago, one by name Marks had constructed a house to the north of the suit schedule property in site no.55. I am not aware that there are 2 houses on the northern side and one house on the southern side of the suit schedule property. It is true that in the eastern boundary of the suit schedule property, road is not shown. My son is looking after the entire transaction, I know very little about this case. It may be true that road is not in existence on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, but it may be in existence on the western side. I have not gone to the police station. My son is looking after the entire transaction, I know very little about this case. It may be true that road is not in existence on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, but it may be in existence on the western side. I have not gone to the police station. My son had gone to the police station when the defendants prevented us when we attempted to put fencing to the suit schedule property. My son got prepared the affidavit evidence. Acknowledgment issued by police is with my son. I have not informed my advocate about the acknowledgment issued by the police. I do not feel that acknowledgments have to be produced before the Court. Further Cross Examination: deferred since the witness felt vommitting." "Witness recalled and duly sworn on: 17/02/09. Cross Examination by Sri: MUS. 8. When I visited the suit schedule property in the year 1988 to purchase the same, then no layout was formed in the said land. Road was provided to the site on the Western side. The road was provided in the land of my vendors. It is true that in Ex.E.1 to Ex.P.3 no road is shown to the suit schedule property." Emphasis supplied by me. 12. On a careful and closer examination of the aforesaid cross-examination, several vital and damaging admissions emerge. Though the plaint schedule describes specific boundaries, the plaintiff has, during the course of trial, attempted to alter and improve her version by asserting that the suit property is bounded by a road on the eastern side and by private properties on the remaining sides. However, in further cross-examination, she has unequivocally admitted that when she allegedly purchased the property in 1988, no layout had been formed in the land. She has also candidly admitted that though she claims existence of a road, no such road is reflected in Exs.P-1 to P-3, which constitute the foundational documents of her claim. 13. Though an attempt was made to further improve the case by suggesting that a kacha road exists presently, the plaintiff has admitted that even in the agreement-cum-sale and the connected documents, while boundaries are broadly mentioned, the names or particulars of adjacent owners are conspicuously absent. It is also admitted that no municipal number or khatha has ever been assigned to the suit schedule property. 14. It is also admitted that no municipal number or khatha has ever been assigned to the suit schedule property. 14. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that transactions executed through General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavits or similar instruments do not convey title nor do they create any right, interest or ownership in immovable property, except to the limited extent permissible under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and that too subject to strict compliance of statutory requirements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further clarified that such documents cannot be relied upon either as a source of title or as a lawful foundation for asserting possession in respect of immovable property. In the case on hand, the plaintiff admittedly bases her claim solely on an agreement-cum-sale and an unregistered General Power of Attorney, without any registered conveyance deed. In the absence of a valid title deed and in view of the categorical admissions regarding non-formation of layout and non-identification of the suit property, the plaintiff cannot seek protection of possession by way of a decree of injunction. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not confer any legally recognizable right or possession, and the suit for injunction simpliciter is wholly misconceived. 15. In the light of these categorical admissions, it becomes evident that the plaintiff, who asserts her possession and right over the suit schedule property on the basis of an agreement-cum-sale coupled with an unregistered General Power of Attorney, has completely failed to establish the identity and location of the property claimed. More significantly, she has admitted that her vendors never formed any layout. Once it is admitted that no layout existed and that the suit site is claimed as a carved-out portion of an agricultural land, the very foundation for seeking a decree of perpetual injunction becomes untenable. 16. More significantly, she has admitted that her vendors never formed any layout. Once it is admitted that no layout existed and that the suit site is claimed as a carved-out portion of an agricultural land, the very foundation for seeking a decree of perpetual injunction becomes untenable. 16. In a suit for injunction simpliciter, especially in the peculiar facts of the present case, the plaintiff was required, at the threshold, to clearly establish: (i) the existence and proper identification of the suit schedule property; (ii) her lawful possession over the same, supported by valid and recognizable title documents; (iii) the alleged interference by the defendants. 17. Though the plaintiff attempted to cast aspersions on the title of the defendants, and though the defendants have placed substantial rebuttal evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that it is unnecessary to delve into the rebuttal evidence. The burden squarely lay upon the plaintiff, who approached the Court seeking a discretionary relief of injunction, to first establish the foundational facts. Having failed to prove the very identification of the suit property and having asserted possession solely on the basis of a General Power of Attorney and allied documents, which do not convey title in the eye of law, the plaintiff has also failed to establish any credible interference by the defendants. 18. In the light of the settled legal position that a General Power of Attorney or an agreement-cum-sale does not confer ownership or lawful possession, the plaintiff’s claim stands completely eroded. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated these aspects and has correctly non-suited the plaintiff. 19. Upon an independent reappraisal of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the judgment and decree under challenge is well-reasoned and do not suffer from either perversity or legal infirmity. The grounds urged in the appeal memo do not merit acceptance. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative. Finding on Point No.2: 20. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER: Appeal is dismissed.