Dismissed

B C Basavaraju v. T Kotturaiah

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021RSA/2442/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a purchaser of 26 guntas of land. The court held that possession follows title for vacant land and directed the appellant to seek rectification or declaration for the full area if purchased, noting no substantial question of law arose. The appeal against a decree granting perpetual injunction for 26 guntas was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

B C Basavaraju Vs T Kotturaiah — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2442 OF 2017 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.C. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, BARADALEPALYA, KENKERE MAJARE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ., TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. M.VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

T. KOTTURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, SURANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶12

SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, DURGADASIMEPALYA, KENKERE MAJARE HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.10.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.76/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.8.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.324/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkanayakanahalli as well as the judgment and decree passed by the I Appellate Court in R.A.76/2012.

¶19

Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of O.S.No.324/2005 are that the land bearing Sy.No.109/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas belonged to the defendant No.1, who sold 27 guntas in favour of Nanjundaiah in terms of a deed of absolute sale dated 18.05.1977 and retained the remaining 33 guntas.

¶20

¶21

Thereafter, defendant No.1 sold 26 guntas of land to the plaintiff/appellant in terms of a sale deed dated 14.11.1977. However, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 14.11.1977, encompassed the property measuring 33 guntas and therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession in an area of 33 guntas. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of 26 guntas of land and the same was confirmed in appeal before the I Appellate Court. The appellant has therefore filed the present appeal contending that the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the entire extent of land and the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed encompass of 33 guntas of land and defendant No.1 had not retained any portion of land in Sy.No.109/1.

¶22

The suit filed by the plaintiff was for perpetual injunction based on a sale deed, in terms of

¶23

¶24

which, the plaintiff had purchased 26 guntas of land. It is the first principle of law that possession follows title in respect of vacant land. The plaintiff ought to have taken necessary steps for rectification of the sale deed to rectify the area of the land measuring 26 guntas if he had in fact purchased the entire extent of land or he must have sought for declaration that what was sold was the entire extent of 0-33 guntas. Thus, the Courts below were absolutely right in restricting the decree to the extent of 26 guntas. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal stands dismissed .

¶25

It is open to the plaintiff/appellant to sue for rectification or to seek necessary declaration subject however to the law of limitation.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

NR/-

B C Basavaraju v. T Kotturaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B C Basavaraju v. T Kotturaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.S. Mallikarjuna Vs Hanumanthappa

Hanumanthappa Vs Basavaraj

D v Ramakrishnaiah Vs State by P S I of Doddabelavangala Town P S

Sri Padmanabha Karkere Vs Smt Baby

Sundrabai Vs R Ananthram Singh

Smt Chikkathayamma Vs Sri Maraiah