AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—These writ petitions are directed against the order on I.A.No. 10 dated 4.12.2012 in O.S.No. 596/03 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Bangalore (Bangalore Rural District), whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for framing an additional issue has been rejected. I have heard Sri. A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Suryaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for declaration and possession of ''C Schedule property, which is a part of ''A'' schedule property. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the 1st and 2nd defendants by playing fraud on the 1st plaintiff have obtained a General Power of Attorney and on the basis of the GPA, a sale deed in respect of the said property was executed in favour of 2nd defendant. The defendants have denied the said plea. They have further stated that ''C schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant ever since the date of agreement to sell dated 26.10.1990. The 1st defendant on the strength of the said agreement of sale and GPA has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant.
On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed issue No. 2 as under;
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants 1 and 2 have played fraud on 1st plaintiff and got created General Power of Attorney and then the sale deed dated 10.11.80 with respect to the suit schedule properties as such it is null and void and not binding on them?
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that having regard to the specific defence of the defendants, the burden should have been cast on them to prove that deceased plaintiff No. 1 had executed a GPA dated 26.10.1990 in favour of the 1st defendant.
As noticed, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that GPA is a got up document. Therefore, burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish the same. I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly framed issue No. 2 casting burden on the plaintiffs. It is unnecessary for framing proposed additional issue in IA No. 10. The trial Court on proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case has rejected the application. I do not find any error in the order. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit requires expeditious disposal. The suit is pending since the year 2003 It is not in dispute that it is at the evidence stage. Therefore, I direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.