A power of attorney alone does not convey title to immovable property.

The appellant claimed rights over Site No. 17 in Survey No. 70/2, Laggere, based on a power of attorney executed in her favour by Smt. Kempamma in 1992.

She relied on her alleged possession, construction of a house, khata entries, and payment of taxes.

The second defendant asserted that he had conveyed the same site to the third defendant by a registered sale deed dated 29 July 2004.

The appellant’s suit, initially seeking an injunction, was amended to seek declaration and possession; the Trial Court dismissed it.

In appeal, the appellant also sought to adduce additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

1. Whether the appellant established ownership of the suit property through the power of attorney executed by Smt. Kempamma

2. Whether the appellant’s possession, construction, and payment of taxes conferred ownership rights

3. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment and decree were sustainable in law

4. Whether the appellant’s application to produce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be allowed

Under the principles of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act, a power of attorney, by itself, does not convey title to immovable property; ownership is transferred through a valid registered sale deed.

Possession, construction, khata entries, and payment of property taxes do not independently establish ownership in the absence of a valid conveyance.

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC governs the admission of additional evidence in appeal; the Court rejected the proposed documents because they did not assist in establishing title.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 CPC.

No cited precedent was expressly applied in the Court’s reasoning.

The appellant’s ownership claim rested on the 1992 power of attorney, which authorised her to deal with the property and construct on it but did not transfer title to her; the Court also noted that Kempamma herself had not established ownership.

The Court found that the site claimed by the appellant was the same site conveyed to the third defendant under the registered sale deed, with matching descriptions and boundaries.

The appellant’s possession-related evidence and tax payments could not overcome the absence of a valid conveyance, particularly where her amended claim for possession indicated that she was out of possession.

The additional documents concerning khata and tax payments likewise did not establish title and were therefore not admitted.

The appeal was dismissed, the Trial Court’s judgment and decree were affirmed, and any interim order was discharged; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.