[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-292037-105":59,"doc-detail-292037-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","2025-insc-273-reportable-judgment-supreme-court-of-india","2025 INSC 273 Reportable - Judgment - Supreme Court of India","","Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in civil appellate jurisdiction concerning Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025 arising from Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 13618-13619 of 2020. The court frames the controversy around property transactions tied to a General Power of Attorney and an unregistered agreement to sell, including the relationship between the executant and the POA holder, the independent and combined reading of the POA with the agreement to sell, and the effect of a suit for injunction. It also records prior decisions from Karnataka High Court and the trial court and provides an index of issues for consideration and analysis before concluding with leave granted.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/2025-insc-273-reportable-judgment-supreme-court-of-india/292037/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/2025-insc-273-reportable-judgment-supreme-court-of-india/292037.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Himbo","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the case identified as in this judgment?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The judgment is identified as 2025 INSC 273 and concerns Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025 arising from Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 13618-13619 of 2020.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What key legal issues are analyzed regarding the General Power of Attorney?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The analysis considers the relationship between the executant and the POA holder, the independent reading of the POA with the agreement to sell, and the combined reading of those documents.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What procedural outcome does the judgment record in the conclusion?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The conclusion states that leave is granted, and that both appeals raising the same issues are disposed of by a common judgment and order.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},292037,1789647699,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},687197100911,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a000239b6f1da00475?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1785132997149421697","2025 INSC 273 Reportable  \nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  \nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  \nCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3266-3267 OF 2025  \n(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13618-13619 OF 2020)  \nM. S. ANANTHAMURTHY & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)  \nVERSUS  \nJ. MANJULA ETC …RESPONDENT(S)  \nJ U D G M E N T  \nSignature Not Verified  \nDigitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.02.27  \n16:48:24 IST  \nReason:  \nJ.B. PARDIWALA, J.  \nFor the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-  \nINDEX  \nA. FACTUAL MATRIX...........................................................................................3  \nB. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT...............................................................................15  \nC. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S) ...........................21  \nD. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ........................24  \nE. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION...................................................................26  \nF. ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................27  \ni. Relationship between the Executant and Holder of General Power of Attorney........... 28  \nii. Independent Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell ... 32  \na. ‘Interest’ in Power of Attorney ..................................................................................... 32  \nb. Nature of Power of Attorney ......................................................................................... 40  \niii. Combined Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell ...... 46  \niv. Effect of Suit for Injunction simpliciter ........................................................................... 54  \nG. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................60  \n1. Leave granted.  \n2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also the self-same, hence those were taken up analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.  \n3. These appeals have been filed before this Court from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 16.10.2019 in  \nR.F.A. No. 1318/2014 c/w R.F.A. No. 1317/2014 (“impugned judgment”) whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the common judgment and decree dated 21.06.2014 passed in O.S. No. 133/2007 and O.S. No. 4045/2008 by the Court of VIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City.  \nA. FACTUAL MATRIX  \n4. The description of the parties before this Court, the High Court and before the Trial Court is tabulated as follows:-  \n\n| BEFORE THIS COURT | BEFORE THE HIGH COURT | BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT | REMARKS |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Muniyappa | - | - | Original Owner |\n\n\n| A. Saraswathi | - | - | Holder of POA |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Appellants | Petitioners | Plaintiff in\u003Cbr>O. S. No.\u003Cbr>4045/2008 | Defendant in suit instituted by the respondent no. 9 |\n| Respondent Nos. 1-6 | Respondent Nos. 1-6 | Defendant\u003Cbr>Nos. 1-6 | Legal heirs of original owner |\n| Respondent No. 7 | Respondent No. 7 | Defendant No.\u003Cbr>7 | Purchaser |\n| Respondent No. 8 | Respondent Nos. 8-10 | Defendant No.\u003Cbr>8 | Purchaser |\n| Respondent No. 9/Answering Respondent | Respondent No. 11 | Plaintiff in\u003Cbr>O. S. No.\u003Cbr>133/2007 | Defendant no. 9 in suit instituted by the appellants/Gift\u003Cbr>Deed Holder |\n\nAppellant no. 2 was represented by his general power of attorney holder i.e., appellant no. 1, for the purposes of the appeal before the High Court and this Court.  \n5. The dispute arises from a common claim put forward by the appellants and the answering respondent on property bearing Site No. 10, out of Sy. No. 55/1, situated at Chunchaghatta Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk  \n(hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”) . The Suit Property originally formed p","cbCais1gWk7gtk2M","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCais1gWk7gtk2M","pdf",686835,61,"English","# Index\n## F. Analysis\n### i. Relationship between the Executant and Holder of General Power of Attorney\n### ii. Independent Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell\n### iii. Combined Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell\n### iv. Effect of Suit for Injunction simpliciter\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What is the case identified as in this judgment?\",\"answer\":\"The judgment is identified as 2025 INSC 273 and concerns Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025 arising from Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 13618-13619 of 2020.\"},{\"question\":\"What key legal issues are analyzed regarding the General Power of Attorney?\",\"answer\":\"The analysis considers the relationship between the executant and the POA holder, the independent reading of the POA with the agreement to sell, and the combined reading of those documents.\"},{\"question\":\"What procedural outcome does the judgment record in the conclusion?\",\"answer\":\"The conclusion states that leave is granted, and that both appeals raising the same issues are disposed of by a common judgment and order.\"}]","2025 INSC 273 Reportable - Judgment - Supreme Court of India | PDF",154]