Working Abroad, a Converted Site and a Family Feud: Karnataka HC Protects a 2004 Buyer's Possession
The Karnataka High Court on October 30, 2026 dismissed an appeal against a UAE-based buyer of a converted layout site at Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, holding a family power of attorney valid, barring a late challenge to the 2004 sale deed under Article 59, and relying on BBMP khata and tax records. What site buyers should keep in order.
In July 2004, a buyer purchased Site No. 37 in a converted layout at Pattanagere village, Kengeri Hobli, on the south-western edge of Bengaluru. He got the khata transferred and paid property tax year after year. In 2015, he went to court alleging that members of the family whose father had signed his sale deed were interfering with his possession. After filing the suit, he had to travel to the UAE for work, and his elder brother had to carry the case. On October 30, 2026, about eleven years after the suit was filed, the Karnataka High Court confirmed the decree protecting his possession of the site.
The judgment, in Sri Srinivas and Others v. Sri B R Venkatram, Regular First Appeal No. 1757 of 2019, was delivered by Justice Rajesh Rai K. It is useful reading for any Bengaluru site buyer, and especially for non-resident owners who have to manage a dispute from abroad.
The short answer. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the 2019 decree of permanent injunction. It held that a special power of attorney given to the buyer's elder brother during the suit was "fully valid and legally effective", that the defendants could not attack a 2004 sale deed signed by their own father as power of attorney holder, and that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act the period to seek cancellation of a registered instrument is "three years from the date of knowledge". The buyer's registered deed, conversion order, BBMP khata and tax receipts proved possession. The trade-off: a clean paper trail protected the buyer, but defending it took eleven years and two courts.
What was the dispute about?
According to the judgment, the buyer bought the site under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2004, executed by the legal heirs of the late Shivanna through their General Power of Attorney holder, Sri Putta Arasaiah. The land in Survey No. 54 had been converted to non-agricultural use by a Deputy Commissioner's order dated 29.08.1994. The BBMP issued a khata certificate and extract in the buyer's name, and he paid property tax.
The defendants, sons of Putta Arasaiah, said the original owner had sold 2 acres in Survey No. 54 to Shivanna in 1957, that Shivanna sold it to their grandmother Hanumakka in 1964, and that the land had been restored under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, in 1982. On that basis, they argued Shivanna's heirs had nothing to sell in 2004. They also argued that the buyer's power of attorney holder could not give evidence, and that a bare injunction suit was not maintainable without a claim for declaration of title.
Can an owner living abroad fight a property suit through a family member?
Yes, on these facts. The buyer filed the suit in 2015 and executed a special power of attorney on 25.11.2016 in favour of his elder brother after moving to the UAE. The court said there is "no legal bar under the CPC" preventing a plaintiff who files a suit from later appointing an attorney "to prosecute, lead evidence, and continue the suit on his behalf due to subsequent exigencies, such as employment abroad."
On whether the brother could testify, the court noted the Supreme Court's rule that an attorney cannot depose on matters only the principal knows, but said later decisions clarified that a close family member with personal knowledge "is fully competent to depose on behalf of the principal." It found the brother "personally handled the property matters, oversaw municipal khata mutations, paid taxes, and was fully conversant with the physical possession of the site."
| Defendants' argument | What the High Court held | Why it matters to buyers |
|---|---|---|
| Attorney appointed after the suit began | Fully valid and legally effective | An owner abroad can authorise family to continue a case |
| Attorney cannot give evidence | A close relative with personal knowledge is competent | Keep a family member involved in khata and taxes |
| Vendors had no title | Defendants cannot impeach a deed their own father signed | Who signed the deed matters as much as what it says |
| Old land restoration claims | Converted layout sites fall outside the PTCL Act, per Full Bench rulings | Conversion orders are critical title documents |
| Bare injunction not maintainable | Suit maintainable where lawful possession is proved | Possession documents can decide the case |
Why couldn't the defendants undo the 2004 sale deed?
Two reasons. First, the deed was signed by Putta Arasaiah, the defendants' father, as power of attorney holder. The court said "neither he nor his sons claiming through him can turn around to impeach or repudiate the conveyance executed by their own predecessor-in-title." It applied the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, holding that any later restoration in favour of Putta Arasaiah "directly enures to the benefit of the plaintiff, perfecting his title".
Second, time had run out. The court said that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, "the statutory period of limitation to cancel or set aside a registered instrument is three years from the date of knowledge." The defendant who testified admitted the family had known of the sale deed "for over 10 to 12 years prior to the suit", and they had taken no action to cancel it. The court said they "cannot collaterally impeach its validity in a suit for bare injunction." PropNewz has discussed Article 59 in another context in its report on a BDA double allotment case.
How did the buyer prove possession?
Through documents. The court listed "a chain of uncontroverted documentary evidence": the registered sale deed of 30.07.2004, the 1994 conversion order, the BBMP khata certificate and extract in his name, and tax receipts from 2008-09 to 2015-16. It said revenue entries and municipal khata certificates "carry a statutory presumption of correctness regarding physical possession and enjoyment unless displaced by cogent rebuttal evidence."
The decisive point was an admission. The defendant who testified admitted in cross-examination that the site "is a site formed in a converted layout", that the ancestral land the family claimed and the site "are different properties", and that none of the defendants were "in physical possession of the suit schedule property." The court also noted that two of the defendants filed no written statement and did not testify, and that the defendant who did testify admitted giving evidence without any authorisation on their behalf. In a suit for injunction, the inquiry is about lawful possession on the date the suit was filed, and on that question the defendants' own evidence went against them.
Did the old land restoration claim affect the site?
No. The court recorded that an application by one of the defendants under the PTCL Act, seeking cancellation of various sale deeds in Survey Nos. 53 and 54, had been dismissed after inquiry, and that the buyer's sale deed was not even challenged in it. It added that, under Full Bench decisions of the High Court, "once agricultural land is validly converted for non-agricultural use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and layout sites are formed, the property ceases to bear the character of agricultural granted land, taking it outside the purview of the PTCL Act."
That does not mean every claim under the PTCL Act can be ignored. It means that in this case, a valid conversion order and formed layout sites were central to the outcome. A buyer of a site in a converted layout should treat the conversion order as one of the most important documents in the file.
What should Bengaluru site buyers, especially NRIs, take from this?
Keep the paper trail current and keep someone you trust close to it. The buyer here won because his title documents and municipal records were in order, and because his brother could speak to them from personal knowledge. NRIs face specific rules on what they can buy, which PropNewz covered in its explainer on NRI rules on farmland and residential property.
- Before buying, get the conversion order for the land and check that it covers the survey number.
- Check who signs the sale deed and on whose authority, including any power of attorney.
- Transfer the khata into your name promptly after registration.
- Pay property tax every year and keep the receipts together.
- If you live abroad, appoint a trusted family member through a proper power of attorney.
- Keep that person involved in tax payments and municipal records, so they have personal knowledge.
- Act quickly through a lawyer if anyone interferes with your possession, and keep dated evidence.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Karnataka High Court decide about the Pattanagere site on October 30, 2026?
Justice Rajesh Rai K dismissed the defendants' appeal and confirmed the City Civil Court's 2019 decree of permanent injunction protecting the plaintiff's possession of Site No. 37 in Survey No. 54, Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli. The court found no perversity, misdirection or jurisdictional error in the trial court's judgment.
Can an owner living abroad use a family member's power of attorney to continue a property suit?
In this case, yes. The court held there is no legal bar on a plaintiff who personally files a suit later appointing an attorney to continue it, for example due to employment abroad. It also accepted the plaintiff's elder brother as a competent witness because he personally handled the property, khata and tax matters.
Why could the defendants not challenge the 2004 sale deed in this suit?
The court noted that the deed was executed by their own father as power of attorney holder, so they could not repudiate it. It also said Article 59 of the Limitation Act gives three years from knowledge to seek cancellation of a registered instrument, and the defendants had known of the deed for 10 to 12 years without suing.
What documents helped the buyer prove possession?
The court relied on the registered sale deed of 30.07.2004, the 1994 conversion order, the BBMP khata certificate and extract in the buyer's name, and property tax receipts from 2008-09 to 2015-16. It also relied on the defendant's own admission in cross-examination that the defendants were not in possession of the site.
This article summarises a court judgment for general information and is not legal advice.
Last updated 2026-11-07. PropNewz Team.
Contact Us
Stay updated with latest news and new projects!
Tell us what you want, We'll do the rest.
Share your budget and where you're looking. An advisor who has actually walked the sites will shortlist a handful of RERA-registered projects and tell you which to skip.