JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017 passed in R.A. No.10165 of 2016 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura and the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2015 passed in O.S. No.265 of 2006 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal as follows. 4. The original plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting the standing trees or otherwise dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He has purchased the suit schedule property from one B.S. Shardamma under a registered sale deed dated 09.03.1981. The plaintiff proposed to sell the suit schedule property and executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 as he promised to sell the property and get the plaintiff a good price. 6. Defendant No.1 had not taken any interest over the suit land and not made any attempt to convert the said land for more than 1 year. Hence, the plaintiff cancelled the General Power of Attorney on 27.05.1995. This fact was within the knowledge of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 had no authority to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and, in turn, defendant No.2 sold the suit property to defendant No.3. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 7. The defendants filed a common written statement admitting that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 7. The defendants filed a common written statement admitting that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, to look after the suit schedule property and to sell the suit schedule property and he also executed a sale agreement in favour of defendant No.1 on 28.01.1994 and defendant No.1 paid the entire sale consideration amount. The plaintiff‘s wife and children also executed an agreement of sale on 21.08.1994 and received Rs. 2,00,000/- through a cheque and cash, and they also executed another agreement on 16.04.1994 and received Rs. 1,40,000/-. After the execution of registered General Power of Attorney and the sale agreements, defendant No.1 had got a legal right on the suit schedule property. 8. Defendant No.1 sold the property in favour of defendant No.2 in 1996 as a general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 in turn sold the suit schedule property in 2001 in favour of defendant No.3 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, and the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 for more than 12 years. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 9. It is also contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the bona fide purchasers for a value without notice. There is no cause of action to file a suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. 10. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the necessary issues. 11. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined his power of attorney holder/his son as PW1, examined one witness as PW2, and marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. 12. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, and examined 2 witnesses as DW2 and DW3, and marked 41 documents as Exhibits D1 to D41. 13. 11. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined his power of attorney holder/his son as PW1, examined one witness as PW2, and marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. 12. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, and examined 2 witnesses as DW2 and DW3, and marked 41 documents as Exhibits D1 to D41. 13. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with costs vide judgment dated 16.11.2015. 14. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.265 of 2006, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.10165 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura. 15. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the relevant points for its consideration. 16. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 03.06.2017. 17. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, have filed this Regular Second Appeal. 18. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and also the learned Senior counsel for defendant No.3. 19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 only to manage and supervise the suit land and the plaintiff had not authorized defendant No.1 to sell the suit schedule property. He also submitted that the plaintiff had never executed any sale agreements as alleged by defendant No.1. He submits that both the Courts below have not adequately considered the entire evidence placed on record. He submits that the plaintiff has cancelled the General Power of Attorney on 27.05.1995. In view of the cancellation of the registered General Power of Attorney, defendant No.1 had no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Further, he submits that defendant No.2 had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property based on the general power of attorney. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 20. Further, he submits that defendant No.2 had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property based on the general power of attorney. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.3 submits that when the plaintiff executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, the plaintiff authorized defendant No.1 to make and present for alienation of the said land and also to sell, mortgage, and lease the land to some other person. He submits that pursuant to the registered general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in his favour. He submits that defendant No.2 in turn sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was on 10.01.1996 as per Exhibit D-20 and the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was on 11.06.2001 as per Exhibit D-22. 21. He submits that the plaintiff was well aware about the execution of the registered sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and the plaintiff has not taken any steps to challenge the registered sale deed within 3 years from the date of knowledge. 22. He also submits that the sale deed was registered on 10.01.1996, which is a constructive notice to the whole world, as per the Explanations to the expression “a person is said to have notice” under Section 3 [Interpretation-clause.—In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context — x x x “ a person is said to have notice ” of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for willful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation I.— Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated: Provided that— (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) and the rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument or memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act and (3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act. Explanation II.— Any person acquiring any immoveable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof. Explanation III.— A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material: Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud] of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff should have filed a suit within 3 years from 10.01.1996. But, the instant suit was filed in 2006. Thus, there is a delay of more than 12 years in filing the suit. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 23. He also submits that the general power of attorney is coupled with interest. The plaintiff should have filed a suit within 3 years from 10.01.1996. But, the instant suit was filed in 2006. Thus, there is a delay of more than 12 years in filing the suit. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 23. He also submits that the general power of attorney is coupled with interest. Therefore, there is no question of cancellation of a registered general power of attorney. He submits that it is apparent that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the plaintiff. Hence, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 24. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 25. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he had also executed a general power of attorney dated 16.04.1994 in favour of defendant No.1. The said general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is marked as Exhibit D1. 26. The learned senior counsel for defendant No.3 has provided a copy of the general power of attorney marked as Exhibit D1. 27. I have perused Exhibit D1 wherein the plaintiff has executed a general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 authorising defendant No.1 to make and represent for alienation of the said land, and to sell, mortgage, lease the land to some other person on his behalf and to receive the sale price, mortgage on his behalf and to execute a registered sale deed and other documents on his behalf. 28. Based on Exhibit D1, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 10.01.1996. The said sale deed is marked as Exhibit D20, and defendant No.1 delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 and there is a recital in the registered sale deed regarding delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. 29. Defendant No.2 in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 11.06.2001 marked as Exhibit D22. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is of the year 1996. 30. 29. Defendant No.2 in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 11.06.2001 marked as Exhibit D22. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is of the year 1996. 30. From the perusal of Exhibit D1, it is evident that the said power of attorney is coupled with the interest. The plaintiff contended that he has cancelled the registered power of attorney by the registered cancellation deed dated 27.05.1995. The said cancellation is unilateral and before cancellation, the plaintiff has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. The alleged cancellation of the registered GPA is contrary to the provisions of General Power of Attorney Act, 1882. 31. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.3 that the first sale deed was executed in 1996 and the second sale deed was executed in 2001, however, the instant suit was filed in the year 2006, the suit is barred by limitation. 32. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, a suit for declaration has to be filed when the cause of action accrues for the first time. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for the first time in 1996. However, the instant suit was filed in the year 2006. 33. Both the Courts below have rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time. Thus, both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. 34. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments nor any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. 35. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER : (I) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (II) The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (III) No order as to costs. (IV) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.