Property land conflicts.
VIMAL RAJ K
(Querist) 09 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
Mr. O and 4 sons are declared as the original owner of the property by his father. A GPA was executed on a piece of land by Mr. O to the unregistered GPA holder Mr. G.
1. One Mr. X has purchased a land in 1993 and the sale deed got registered in Bangalore by the unregistered GPA holder (not by the original owner of the plot) and he signed the registered sale deed on behalf of the original owner (Not sure if the original owner has revoked the GPA or any confirmation deed is given).
2. Mr. X had not paid any taxes.
3. EC is not in the name of Mr. X (No title of Mr. X is mentioned in the 25 years EC)
4. In case of Mr. X's sale deed only the GPA holders have signed. The original owner and 4 sons have not signed the sale deed.
Mr. X filed a case in the civil court for temporary injunction (1994) against Mr. O and 4 sons. Civil Court declared that Mr. X has failed to establish possession of suit property. GPA and Ratification deed as disputed documents and rejected the application for temporary injunction.
5. After the rejection of the temporary injunction One Mr. Y has purchased the above said land in 2002 from the original owner Mr. O and registered sale deed was made at sub registrar office.
6. Mr. Y is in possession and has paid all the taxes till date with 10 X 15 house and with electricity bill in his name.
7. EC is in the name of Mr. Y and in the 25 years EC no were Mr. X's registration is recorded. (Only the original owner and the next is Mr. Y records are reflected in the revenue till date 2013.)
8. In Mr. Y's Registration sale deed (2002) the original owner and the four sons have agreed and signed the Registration sale deed papers.
9. In 2002 No objection was made by Mr. X when Mr. Y compounded the land and built a house of 10 X 15 with Electric connection.
Again in 2003 Mr. X filed an appeal in the High court refering the case of temporary injunction against Mr. O and 4 sons. High court has given the judgment (2005) as below in the attachment.
9. The original owner Mr. O died in 2007-2008.
Mr. X is objecting Mr. Y from constructing a house and filled a complaint in police station. But in the police complain the site number is different and the GPA holder’s name is mentioned. Mr. X said there is court case for this property. SI has asked him to get the prayed copy and status of the case.
Mr. X is hiding this High court judgment copy.
I need you help in understanding the High court judgment copy and what should be Mr. Y's action in the police station and in the court.
Thanking you.
R.K Nanda 
(Expert) 09 March 2013
query too long.contact local lawyer.
VIMAL RAJ K
(Querist) 09 March 2013
Can you please help me in understanding the Jugement copy. And guide me how to proceed further?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 March 2013
Q"I need you help in understanding the High court judgment copy and what should be Mr. Y's action in the police station and in the court."
answer:BUT YOU HAVE NOT POSTED THE JUDGEMENT YOU WANT US TO LET YOU UNDERSTAND.
VIMAL RAJ K
(Querist) 10 March 2013
Please find the below jugement extract:
In the above judgment:
Mr. X is the Appellant.
Mr. O and 4 sons are the Respondents.
Mr. Y is a third party as per the case above.
SI has asked Mr. X to get the prayed copy and status of the case for which the judgment is declaired as below
JUDGMENT
The appeal by the plaintiff against rejection of his application for temporary injunction, is challenged on several grounds and that the sale deed in favour of the appellant, no doubt executed by the power of attorney holder for the Respondent No.1, and the Ratification deed executed by the other respondents to ratify the conveyance, is negated by accepting the contention of respondent No.1 in denying the execution of the power of attorney enabling the conveyance in favuor of the appellant. The appellant after purchase of the property the revenue records have been affected in favour of the appellant and taxes have been paid by the appellant, the finding of the trial court that since the general power of attorney and the affidavit executed by the first defendant being disputed document, the other documents in support of the appellant’s case ought to be ignored pending trial, according to the counsel for the appellant, is a perverse finding which is opposed to established principles of law. The trail court proceeded to hold that the appellant has failed to establish possession of the suit properties in the face of the fact that the property has continued to be vacant sites. The counsel for the appellant further points out that by a legal notice dated 21.3.1994, the respondent No.1 herein to the appellant while admitting the suit property had been sold in the favour of the appellant called upon the appellant to desist from including a portion of land earmarked for formation of road in constructing a compound wall, and that the same is illegal. This the counsel for the appellant affirms, is a clear admission of sale to the knowledge of respondent No.1 and the mere denial of execution of general power of attorney would not negate the documents in favour of the appellant and hence he would contend that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the claim of respondent No.1, could, at best be agitated at the trial and that the possession of the appellant ought to be protected.
2. On the other hand, the counsel for all the respondents would vehemently contend that the burden was on the appellant to establish that title was conveyed in favour of the appellant. The respondent having denied the execution of the general power of attorney through him, the appellant having got conveyed the property through general power of attorney holder, could not have acquired valid title and it is a matter of trial whether there was such a general power of attorney, under which the property was validly conveyed and this being a matter for trial, at the present stage, to grant an order of injunction in favour of the appellant would cause gross injustice and the added circumstances that the respondent No.1 has conveyed the property in favour of a third party under a registered sale deed, would further demonstrate that there was no title in the appellant and in the absence of a comprehensive suit for declaration and possession, the present suit for bare injunction in the light of the disputed documents would be ineffective and the grant of any order as prayed for would result in a travesty of Justice. He would further contend, that the notice which is said to be relied upon by the counsel for the appellant to the knowledge of the counsel for the respondents, is not a part of the record and the same could not be sprung by the counsel for the appellant at this stage of hearing and the same cannot be looked into for the purpose of consideration of the present appeal.
3. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the rival contentions, the appellant relies on a sale deed which is executed in his favour by the alleged power of attorney holder of respondent No.1, which is dated 6.5.1993, pursuant to which the revenue records have been affected in favour of the appellant. It is further contended that the ratification deed is executed by the other respondents to ratify the sale transaction by receiving a further amount of money. This no doubt is an unregistered document and could not possibly supplement the registered document namely the sale deed. Even if the ratification deed is to be ignored, the fact that there is registered sale deed in favour of the appellant, cannot be negated by the mere denial of execution of power of attorney enabling the conveyance, by respondent No.1 and therefore I find that the trial court has erred in holding that by virtue of the power of attorney and the ratification deed being disputed documents, the sale deed cannot be relied upon by the appellant. Prima facie this is an error apparent. The subsequent execution of sale deed in favour of a third party by respondent No.1 cannot be setup by respondent No.1 as a reason for denying the protection an order of injunction in favour of the appellant. If respondent No.1 has conveyed the property in favour of a third party, it would be for the third party to raise objection or otherwise. It is not for the respondent No.1 to raise any contention on behalf of such third party.
4. Hence, the appellant is allowed. The order of the trial court is set aside. The respondents are injected from interfering with the possession of the appellant’s property.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 March 2013
1.The judgement is about grant of temporary injunction which the court of appeal has granted in favor of plaintiff appellant after setting aside the refusal order of the trial court.
2.The effect of the judgement is that in the opinion of the appellate court,the plaintiff appellant has succeeded on a making out a case of prima faci title and possession on basis of the sale deed executed in his favor
by POA.
3.One should not understand that issues involved in the case has been decided finally by court of appeal.
4.Every controversy is open in the case and shall be decided by trial court after recording evidence of parties.
5.So plaintiff appellant should not be over enthused at this stage and should exercise for final preparation on merit.
This is all the effect of the judgement.
Do not have you any lawyer for case in the trial court.????
Here after go by him more than dancing here and there for unnecessary opinions.
A waste of time on either side.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 March 2013
In case you yourself is a lawyer then be kind to the interest of your client and get engaged a senior too.
VIMAL RAJ K
(Querist) 10 March 2013
I am Mr. Y what should be my offence in the police station and if I have to raise case in the court on what grounds this should filled. Can you please suggest?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 March 2013
Actually, such specific advice cannot be sought on public platforms rather it requires in depth study of your case and then to opine. a general view can be given in every case but not specifications as you have sought being a lawyer. I advise to take the help of local senior lawyer or personally contact either of the experts in this regard.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 10 March 2013
agree with Mr. Makkad :)
