Dismissed

Mr Ramanatha Bhat v. Smt Prabhavathi

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023RSA/473/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular Second Appeal challenges a decree specific for performance and possession against an alleged subsequent purchaser. The single bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' finding that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser knowing of the prior sale agreement.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal No.473 of 2021 was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.

Mr Ramanatha Bhat Vs Smt Prabhavathi — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.473 OF 2021 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAMANATHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE H.BALAKRISHNA BHAT, RAMADAYA, HALEYANGADY POST, MANGALURU TALUK-574146

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RODDA VERRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PATGAR NARENDRA HANUMANT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. PRABHAVATHI AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. USHA RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶15

SRI RAGHAVENDRA BHAT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶16

SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶17

SRI H. KRISHANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENT NOS.1 IS THE WIFE AND 2 AND 5 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE H. VASUDEVA BHAT

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶20

AND ALL ARE R/AT DOOR NO.2940, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-570009.

¶21

MR. P.S. RAMESH RAO S/O LATE P.S. SRIDHAR RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BHEEMA JWELLERS THIRUVANTHAPURAM KERALA STATE-685004

¶22

MR. S. PRAKASH S/O LATE P N SRIDHAR RAO HINDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KARNATAKA BANK, JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK BRANCH, BENGALURU-560041

¶23

MR. P.S. SRINIVAS RAO S/O LATE P.N. SRIDHAR RAO HINDU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT C/O HARISH KUMAR BHAT DOOR NO.7-1-5-E-1 BEHIND NAVAL OFFICE CHITPADY, BEEDINGUDDA UDUPI-576101

¶24

MRS. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE P N SRIDHAR RAO W/O HARISH KUMAR BHAT DOOR NO.7-1-5-E-1 BEHIND NAVAL OFFICE CHITPADY, BEEDIGUDDA UDUPI-576101

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶26

MRS. UMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O LATE P N SRIDHAR RAO C/O HARISH KUMR BHAT DOOR NO.7-1-5-E-1 BEHIND NAVAL OFFICE CHITPADY BEEDIGUDDA UDUPI-576101

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;) R6, R7 AND R9 SERVED (R8 AND R10 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2021)

¶29

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED IN R.A.No.164/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K (ITINERARY AT MOODABIDRI). DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.No.45/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOODABIDARI.

¶30

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶33

parties.

¶34

The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of specific performance based on the agreement to the extent of 1 acre and out of that, based on the sale deed as well as the Power of Attorney executed by the original owner, he has sold

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶37

the 30 cents of the property and remaining 20 cents of the property, sale deed has not been executed and hence, notice was issued and filed a suit for the relief of possession. Defendant No.7 who is the appellant herein claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser and he has purchased the property on 16.09.2010 to the extent of 20 cents.

¶38

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of both the parties framed an additional issue with regard to whether he is a bonafide purchaser and the Trial Court also while answering the additional issue No.1 in paragraph No.12, taken note of admission given by the defendant No.7 that he is aware about the previous agreement for sale and also taken note of the further admission given by him that though aware of the earlier agreement he felt that they are the selling the property which is not the suit schedule property and different property. Hence, answered additional issue No.1 in the negative and the Trial Court decreed the suit.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court an appeal is filed by the appellant in RA 164/2016 and the First Appellate Court also on considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo has also taken note of both oral and

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶41

documentary evidence and formulated the point as whether the defendant No.7 proves that he is the bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property and whether the impugned judgment and decree requires any interference.

¶42

The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence particularly considering the evidence of defendant No.4 and 7 who have been examined as DW1 and DW2, though relied upon the sale deed dated 16.09.2010 and taken note of admission given by them that even though having the knowledge about earlier sale agreement, in spite of it the same is purchased, though reason is given that he was under impression that the property was not sold which is the subject matter of the sale agreement and answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses, both the Trial Court as well as the First appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that he is not a bonafide purchaser.

¶43

It is also important to note that he is also the relative of agreement holder and his father is one of the attesting witness to the said sale agreement. The same is also considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶46

Court. Hence, the Courts below have not accepted the contention that he is a bonafide purchaser. Hence, dismissed the appeal.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, against the concurrent finding, the present appeal is filed and the counsel for appellant would vehemently contend that he is the bonafide purchaser, he has purchased the property for valuable sale consideration. Both the Courts have committed an error in not coming to the conclusion that he is a bonafide purchaser and also contend that the sale agreement dated 17.03.1989 and the suit filed in the year 2012, that too after 23 years. The fact that the sale agreement was executed and possession was delivered and also the power of attorney was executed in favour of the plaintiff and consequent upon the sale agreement as well as the power of attorney, 80 cents of property was sold by plaintiff and only he retained 20 cents of land and also filed notice given against the defendant and original vendor, since the original vendor no more, legal representatives of original vendor were brought on record and having considered the material on record, I do not find any error committed by the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:31799 RSA No. 473 of 2021

¶50

Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court in decreeing the suit.

¶51

The counsel for the respondents submits that consequent upon the decree, already sale deed was also executed in favour of the respondent. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law as contended by the counsel for the appellant.

¶52

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The second appeal is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

SN/RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

Mr Ramanatha Bhat v. Smt Prabhavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ramanatha Bhat v. Smt Prabhavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H Srinivas Pai Vs Rathna D Hegde

Sri N Harinatha Babu Vs Smt. Sathyaprema

Chennabasappa Dead by Lrs Vs Guruswamy

Sri Appaswamy Vs Sri G v Thimmaiah

Sri Govindappa Vs Sri N.H. Rehman

G. Mahesh Vs Smt. Lalithamma