This regular second appeal was filed by a defendant contesting a decree for declaration of title and injunction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that concurrent findings of title based on chain of sale deeds suffered no infirmities and no substantial question of law arose.
The second appeal and pending applications were dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2010 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI.HANUMANTHAIAH SON OF LATE LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT VITTALAPURA VILLAGE MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572227
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.ANDANIGOWDA SON OF LATE HUCCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT VITTALAPURA VILLAGE MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572227 (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.GNANESH H KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2023:KHC:41037 RSA No. 2010 of 2016
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.19/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TURUVEKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.5.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.161/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TURUVEKERE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees of both Courts, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration and for consequential relief of injunction is decreed by both the Courts. The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant.
referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;
The plaintiff has instituted the present suit
seeking relief of declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that his mother namely Smt.Giriyamma has purchased the property from the defendant through the registered sale deed dated 24.09.1987. The plaintiff further contended that the property purchased by his mother was the subject matter of partition and the portion of property, which is purchased by her mother, is allotted to the plaintiff's share. The present suit is filed alleging that the defendant, who had no semblance of right and title, is interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
tendered appearance and filed written statement. The defendant, though admitted the purchase made by him under two sale deeds, however, has disputed the entire
case of the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the boundaries shown in the plaint do not tally with the boundaries indicated in the sale deed. On these set of grounds, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
over the suit schedule property has produced the sale deeds of defendant vide Exs.P.10 and 11. The plaintiff by placing reliance on these two sale deeds contended that the defendant acquired title over the suit schedule property under two sale deeds. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on the sale deed secured by his mother, which is marked at Ex.P.1. Under Ex.P.1, the plaintiff's mother has purchased the entire extent, which was purchased by the defendant under two sale deeds.
documents and in absence of clinching rebuttal evidence decreed the suit.
the plaintiff's peaceful possession inspite of having conveyed the entire property in favour of the plaintiff's mother under the registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration. Both Courts referring to these title documents have answered issue No.1 in the affirmative thereby holding that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his mother's title over the property in question. Thus, concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts on issue No.1 are based on the title documents vide Exs.P.1, 10 and 11 and in absence of rebuttal evidence. The finding recorded by both Courts on issue No.1 does not suffer from any infirmities, which would warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
No substantial questions of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the plaintiff's title established through chain of sale deeds warrant interference in regular second appeal.
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the decreed suitor dismissal of appeal.
HANUMANTHAIAH
ANDANIGOWDA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
