This appeal under S. 100 CPC was dismissed. The appellant, a defendant, contested a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The court found the appellant's vendor had no title when selling the property to him, holding no merit in his challenge.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
R.S.A.No.2171 OF 2012 (DEC & INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI HUTCHANNA S/O GANIGARA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHELUR VILLAGE GUBBI TQ.
TUMKUR DIST-572 227.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.)
AND:
SRI. G.C.KEMPATHIMMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAADVAPPA DEAD BY LRS
2
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GANIGAR BEEDI, 6TH CROSS, GUBBI TOWN, GUBBI TQ., TUMKUR DIST-572 227. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 28.6.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.187/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 26.11.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.284/1994 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), GUBBI.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No.187/2006 dated 28.06.2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Gubbi, whereby the judgment and decree in O.S.284/1994 dated 26.11.2005 on the file of the
3
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) at Gubbi has been confirmed.
4
purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs have purchased the property under the sale deed dated 26.08.1991 and the defendant has purchased the same property from the vendors of the plaintiffs under a sale deed dated 10.07.1992. It is obvious that when the defendant purchased the property, his vendor had no saleable interest. The trial court is therefore justified in decreeing the suit and the First Appellate Court is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
KLY/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by a defendant who purchased property from a vendor having no sellable interest to transfer.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI HUTCHANNA S/O GANIGARA RAMAIAH
SRI. G.C.KEMPATHIMMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAADVAPPA
SMT KEMPAMMA W/O LATE G.C.KEMPATHIMMAIAH
SRI. G.K.GANGARAJU S/O LATE G.C.KEMPATHIMMAIAH
SMT. CHANDRAKALA
SRI. NANDAKUMAR
S. ABDUL NAZEER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
