The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration regarding a disputed sale deed alleged to be forged. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings based on finger-print expert reports and rebuttal evidence.
Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arises.
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 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT HANUMANTHANAGAR, MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI, RAMANAGAR, KARNATAKA - 562 109.
1(D). S. KOMALA, W/O NAGARAJU C, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 16TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 023. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. VIDYA SELVAMONY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK P. M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. N. SUBBA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 01.12.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.02/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.593/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA.
NC: 2023:KHC:38853 RSA No. 283 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 15.10.1988 secured by the defendants is a fraudulent and concocted document and the same was forged by the defendants by impersonation. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The appellants claimed that the original plaintiff, namely, Jayamma, has instituted a suit in O.S.No.593/2006 seeking relief of declaration of title. The plaintiff has alleged that she obtained a hand loan from
defendant No.3 and therefore handed over the original documents to defendant No.3 who, in turn, colluded with defendants No.2 and created a sale deed dated 15.10.1988 in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed dated 15.10.1988, is a forged document and the same is concocted and created fraudulently by defendants No.1 to 3.
NC: 2023:KHC:38853 RSA No. 283 of 2016
and that it is defendant No.4, who is in possession of the suit land.
NC: 2023:KHC:38853 RSA No. 283 of 2016
examination of P.Ws.2 and 3, wherein both the witnesses admitted that they were not witnesses to the alleged loan transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The Trial Court also found that the defendants have succeeded in eliciting the parting of sale consideration in the crossexamination of plaintiff, who is examined as P.W.1. On these set of reasoninigs, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.
Court was also of the view that the theory of concoction as alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff is not substantiated during trial. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge.
loan from defendant No.3 and therefore, under compelling reasons, she has to hand over the original documents to defendant No.3. Therefore, the plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.3, taking undue advantage of custody of original documents in collusion with defendant No.2 has created a sale deed. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she never went to the sub-registrar's office. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed is secured by impersonation and therefore, it is alleged that the sale
NC: 2023:KHC:38853 RSA No. 283 of 2016
deed dated 10.08.1988, is a concocted and created document. Insofar as the allegation that the plaintiff has handed over original documents after availing a hand loan from defendant No.3 is not substantiated. Both the witnesses examined by the plaintiff have not supported this theory. Now coming to the sale deed dated 10.08.1988, at the instance of plaintiff, the Court of First Instance referred the admitted and disputed signatures of plaintiff to two fingerprint experts. Both experts have furnished independent reports and based on the reports submitted by the experts on comparison, it is opined by
the experts that the LTM found in the admitted and disputed sale deeds are similar. Referring to these experts opinion and coupled with other rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants, which also took note of several admissions elicited in cross-examination of the plaintiff and two witnesses, both the Courts have upheld the genuineness of the sale deed dated 10.08.1988 and consequently, dismissed the suit. The findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts are based on clinching rebuttal
evidence let in by the defendants coupled with several admissions elicited in cross-examination of the plaintiff and two witnesses. On examining the judgments and reasons assigned by both the Courts, this Court is of the view that the conclusions and findings recorded by both the Courts are based on clinching rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants. I do not find any infirmities in the judgments rendered by both the Courts.
Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, second appeal is
dismissed .
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises regarding the genuineness of the disputed sale deed.
Whether relevant and conclusive evidence against the plaintiffs justifies dismissal of the appeal.
Whether the concurrent findings of facts by lower courts should be set aside.
RATHANAMMA
ANJULA
SHEKAR
S. KOMALA
VINOD KUMAR
SOMASHEKAR
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
