Two regular first appeals against a common judgment dismissing suits for declaration of title and possession over sites in an unauthorized layout. The High Court held that sale deeds registered at Chennai for Bangalore property did not convey title and affirmed the dismissal.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2009 (DEC) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)
IN RFA NO. 162 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DULY REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER VENUGOPAL, S/O M VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.8, KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, B.S.K. II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 070.
NO.717, 1ST MAIN, 4TH A CROSS, DOMLUR 1ST STAGE, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 070.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SOMASUNDARA DIKSHIT., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B, D TO G & I. R1 (H) SERVED V/O/D: 6/6/2013 R1 (C) STANDS DISMISSED SRI.G.B.MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1(C) (1-5) R1(C) (6) SERVED SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K FOR SRI T.N VISHWANATH & T.N RAMESH FOR R2 AND R3 V/O/D:23/2/2012 R4&R5 STANDS DISMISSED)
THIS RFA FILED U/S 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.3030/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION, DECLARATION OF TITLE AND POSSESSION.
IN RFA NO. 439 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/AT NO.226, VI MAIN, III CROSS, DIWANARAPALYA, BANGALORE-54.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOODI VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALURU 560 048.
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K FOR SRI. T N VISHWANATH FOR R3, SRI. SOMASUNDARA DIKSHIT FOR R1(A&B, D TO I) SRI.G.B. MANJUNATH, FOR R1(C) (1-5) R1(C) (6) SERVED R2 SERVED)
THIS RFA FILED U/S 96(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.3240/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Pradeep Naik K., learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Somasundara Dikshit, learned counel for R1(A & B, D to G & I), Sri G.B.Manjunath, learned counsel for R1(C)(l-5), Smt.Sreevidya G.K, learned counsel for Sri T.N.Vishwanath and T.N.Ramesh, learned counsel for R2 and R3.
judgment in OS No.3030/92 & 3040/92 dated 1.10.2008 on the file of XIV Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.28).
first plaintiff' and defendants' and plaintiffs' and defendants' for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking in the Court below.filed a suit for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction at the first instance seeking for an order of injunction restraining interference by defendants therein and also for removal of the stone slabs fixed as a fence over the suit schedule property. Later by amending the plaint suit was converted for declaration of title and
possession. In the suit schedule property, five revenue sites are formed which are morefully described in the schedule situated in Hoodi Village, Banglaore East Tq. K.R.Puram Hobli. (now Bengaluru South Taluk).
FACTS IN OS 3240/1992:
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
are, Site Nos.9, 24, 25 comprised in Sy.No.13/5 of Hoodi Village,K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South taluk
measuring an extent of 90 ft. x 40 ft.
9. Plaintiffs claimed the relief relying upon the
said sale deeds stating that they are absolute owners. Plaintiff in OS No.3240/92 have also filed similar suit claiming their right over the sites purchased by them in the very same unauthorized layout by virtue of similar sale deeds.
2 and 3 appeared before the Court and denied the plaint
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
averments in toto. They filed their written statements. First defendants claimed independent right over the suit schedule sites that he is owner of the entire suit property and they raised agricultural crop to the extent of 1 acre 2 guntas. Second and third defendants contended that they have purchased 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.13/5 by virtue of sale deed dated 16.10.1991 for a valuable consideration of Rs.75,000/- from the first defendant and formed the sites.
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
sides, the following issues were raised by the trial Court in both the suits separately:
Issues in OS No.3030/1992:
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
Issues in OS No.3240/1992:
There were two additional issues framed
in OS 3240/1992 which read as under:
Additional Issues in OS No.3240/1992
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
and documentary evidence on record, dismissed both the suits.
17. Being aggrieved by the same, the present
appeals are filed on the following grounds:
1. The appellants submit that the judgment and decree passed by the court below is contrary to law, equity, which is misconceived one against to the procedure and evidence on record which requires interference by this Hon'ble Court.
2. The appellants submit that the Court below has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed by the appellants and wrongly passed the impugned judgment and decree.
3. The appellants submit that, the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the original 1st respondent has clearly admitted in the written statement that he has sold the respective sites in Sy.No.13/5 of Hoodi village to the respective appellants. When such is the position the Court below ought to have decreed the suit.
4. The appellants submit that the LRs of the original 1st respondent who brought on record after the death of the 1st respondent has taken a different stand saying that their father had not executed any sale deed and the signature on the sale deeds has been taken by collusion and fraud. It is decided by this Hon'ble Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the legal representatives cannot take a different stand contrary to the
stand taken by the original party. The court below has misconceived itself regarding this position of law while passing the impugned judgment and decree.
5. The appellants submit that the DW1 has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the 1 acre 35 guntas of land situated in Sy. No.13/5 of Hoodi village to the respective appellants. When such is the position the Hon'ble Court below ought to have decreed the suit.
6. The appellants submit that the LRs of the original 1st respondent who are brought on record after the death of the 1st respondent thas taken a different stand saying that their father had not executed any sale deed and the signature on the sale deeds has been taken by collusion and fraud. It is decided by this Hon'ble court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the legal representatives cannot take a different stand contrary to the stand taken by the original party. The court below has misconceived itself regarding this position of law while passing the impugned judgment and decree.
7. The appellants submit that the DW1 has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the 1 acre 35 guntas of land situated in Sy. No.13/5 of Hoodi village is the self acquired property of the 1st respondent, either himself or other legal representatives were not aware what were the transaction did by the original 1st respondent during his life time, even they are also not aware about the pendency of the suits. Hence, the court below is not proper in giving importance to the evidence of the DW1 while passing the impugned judgment.
8. The appellants submit that the court below has clearly observed in page No.34 in para No.24 that the appellants have purchased the suit schedule sites by way of registered sale deeds and it is very clear from the registered sale deed that the 1st respondent has executed the same in favour of the appellants herein. But the court below is not proper in further holding that these sale deeds were not acted upon. Once the court held that the 1st respondent has registered the sale deed then it cannot held that those sale deeds are not acted upon. Because once a transfer is always is always a transfer by way of sale in the present case.
9. The appellants submit that the case of the respondent 2 and 3 is that they have purchased 35 guntas in Sy. No.13/5 of Hoodi villag which is situated away from the suit schedule sites and in the cross-examination DW-3 has specifically admitted that their property and the suit schedule sites are entirely different and they have nothing to do with the suit schedule sites but in the crossexamination he has admitted that Ex.P.12 to 17 i.e., the photos belongs to suit schedule sites and the stone slabs are erected by them covering the suit schedule sites. On these admissions, the court below ought to have decreed the suit which requires interference by this Hon'ble Court.
10. The appellants submit that the court below has arrayed the reasons while dismissing the suits holding that the appellants have got registered the suit sites at sub-registrar's office Chennai, since the registration was stopped in Karnataka. But, the Registration Act says that, the document
registered before the sub-registrar who is not having the jurisdiction is not a void document but it is only a voidable document and there is no time stipulated to get it valid. Under the said circumstances, it is not proper on the court below in dismissing the suits."
Grounds in RFA No.439/2009:
1) The appellants submits that the Judgment and Decree passed by the court below is contrary to law, equity, which is misconceived one against to the procedure and evidence on record which requires interference by this Hon'ble Court.
2) The appellants submit that the court below has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed by the appellants and wrongly passed the impugned Judgment and Decree.
3) The appellants submit that, the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the original 1st respondent has clearly admitted in the written statement that he has sold the respective sites in Sy.No.13/5 of Hoodi village to the respective appellants. When such is the position the Hon'ble court below ought to have decreed the suit.
4) The appellants submit that the L.rs of the original 1st respondent who were brought on record after the death of the 1st respondent has taken a different stand saying that their father had not executed any sale deed and the signature on the sale deeds has been taken by collusion and fraud. It is decided by this Hon'ble court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme court that the legal representatives cannot take a different stand contrary to the stand
taken by the original party. The court below has misconceived itself regarding this position of law while passing the impugned judgment and decree.
5) The appellants submit that the Dw1 has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the 1 acre 35 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.13/5 of hoodi village is the self acquired property of the 1st respondent, either himself or other legal representatives were not aware what were the transaction did by the original 1st respondent during his life time, even they are also not aware about the pendency of the suits. Hence, the court below is not proper in giving importance to the evidence of the Dw1 while passing the impugned judgment.
6) The appellants submit that the court below has clearly observed in page No. 34 in para No. 24 that the appellants have purchased the Suit Schedule sites by way of registered sale deeds and it is very clear from the registered sale deed that the 1st respondent has executed the same in favour of the appellants herein. But the court below is not proper in further holding that those sale deed were not acted upon Once the court held that the 1st respondent has registered the sale deed then it cannot held that those sale deeds are not acted upon. Because once a transfer is always is always a transfer by way of sale in the present case.
7) The appellants submit that the case of the respondent 2 & 3 is that they have purchased 35 guntas in Sy. No. 13/5 of hoodi village which is situated away from the Suit Schedule sites and in the cross-examination Dw-3 has specifically admitted that their property and the Suit Schedule sites are entirely different and they have nothing to do with the Suit
Schedule sites but in the cross examination he has admitted that Ex.p-12 to 17 i.e. the photos belongs to Suit Schedule sites and the stone slabs are erected by them covering the Suit Schedule sites and the stone slabs are erected by them covering the Suit Schedule sites. On these admissions, the court below ought to have decreed the suit which requires interference by this Hon'ble court……
8) The appellants submit that the court below has arrayed the reasons while dismissing the suits holding that the appellants have got registered the suit sites at sub registrar's office Chennai since the registration was stopped in Karnataka. But, the Registration Act says that, the document registered before the sub registrar who is not having the jurisdiction is not a void document but it is only a voidable document and there is no time stipulated to get it valid. Under the said circumstances, it is not proper on the court below in dismissing the suits.
9) The appellants submit that one more reason assigned by the court below is that the appellants had purchased the Suit Schedule sites contrary to the provisions of the Fragmentation Act and also the appellants are not the agriculturist. It is for the concerned Revenue Authorities to take appropriate steps regarding the same. But the civil court has to protect the right and interest of the appellants which they have acquired through a valid registered sale deed. By denying the reliefs, the Hon'ble court below virtually setting aside the registered sale deeds obtained by the appellants which lead to miscarriage of justice.
10) The appellants submit that they have not filed any other appeal or Appeals against the impugned judgment and decree before this
Court or any other Courts. The appellants further submit that this filed today is within time.
11) The appellants submit that in O.S.No. 3240/1992, for the relief of declaration and for possession for the Suit Schedules C,D,E & F are valued at Rs.10,000, for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, accordingly Court fee of Rs. 1300/- was paid. Now as per the Amended provisions of KCF & SV Act. it comes Rs.250/- for the relief of declarrion and possession. For Injections relief Rs.25/- each has been paid and accordingly a total sum of Rs.300/- is herewith with paid.
those sale deeds are to be looked into for collateral purposes namely for establishing factum if possession appears in respect of suit properties which has not been properly appreciated by trial court and sought for allowing appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
possession over the suit schedule properties. The photographs Ex.P14 to 15 and Ex.p17 and 18 are not the photographs of respective suit properties.
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
for both the parties and on appreciation of material on record, the following issues would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs were successful in establishing the fact they are the owners of the suit schedule sites which are carved out in Sy.No.13/5 of Hoodi Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk by virtue of sale deed/s executed by the first defendant in the private layout and they were in lawful possession of the suit properties and was there interference by the defendants?
(2) Whether the impugned common judgment suffers from legal infirmity and perversity and whether it calls for interference?
Regarding Points 1 & 2:
NC: 2023:KHC:39107 RFA No. 162 of 2009 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2009
guntas of the land is sold by the 1st defendant by way of registered sale deeds to defendants No.2 and 3 on 16.10.1991 for a valuable consideration of Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter defendants Nos.2 and 3 who were in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the property.
28. The defendants have taken a definite stand that
such sale deeds allegedly executed by 1st defendant in favour of the individual site owners in respect of the suit properties at Chennai were invalid documents. The trial
Court has bestowed its attention with regard to these aspects of the matter in the impugned judgment and has discussed the validity of the sale deeds allegedly executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the individual site owners, who were the plaintiffs.
In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative.
32. Regarding Point No.3 : In view of the findings of
this Court on Points Nos.1 and 2 as above, the following:
ORDER
Appeals are meritless and are hereby
dismissed .
No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SK/KLY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs established ownership of the suit sites by virtue of sale deeds executed at Chennai by the first defendant?
Whether the impugned common judgment dismissing the suits for declaration of title and possession suffers from legal infirmity?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Anjali Muniraju
Smt. Sharadamma
Smt. Munirathnamma
Hekkin Sahib Since Dead By His LR'S
Sri. Narayanaswamy
Sri. Subbaraju
V Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court