The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal challenging concurrent judgments that decreed a plaintiff's title to property based on a registered Will, rejecting the defendants' claim of title under a sale deed executed by a vendor lacking saleable rights.
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 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by REKHA ANKAIAH Location: High Court of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 202, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST.
NO: 5 TO 8 ARE R/AT MULINGARU HOUSE, KOWKRADY VILLAGE, KOKKADA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 229.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASAD K.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:40343 RSA No. 665 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT SREENIDHI THOTA, THANETHAR, KOWKRADY VILLAGE, KOKKADA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 229, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST.
…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED IN RA NO.26/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR, DK. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.12/2005 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful defendants, who have questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent
NC: 2023:KHC:40343 RSA No. 665 of 2022
injunction based on a registered Will executed by one H.Narayana Prabhu on 23.11.1983 is decreed by both the Courts.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
The plaintiff is asserting title on the basis of registered Will executed by one H.Narayana Prabhu in favour of plaintiff on 23.11.1983. The plaintiff filed the present suit alleging that the testator died on 01.12.1996 and by way of testamentary succession, the plaintiff asserts that she has become the absolute owner and claims to be in exclusive possession. The plaintiff has also contended that even during the lifetime of Narayana Prabhu, plaintiff and her husband assisted the testator in managing and developing the suit property. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant No.1 has made a false claim over the suit land and is asserting title based on a
registered sale deed dated 26.10.1970, executed by one Smt.Beepathumma and others. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1's vendor had no saleable right in the suit property and therefore, plaintiff contends that the sale by defendant's vendor does not convey title insofar as the suit land is concerned.
NC: 2023:KHC:40343 RSA No. 665 of 2022
testator, who had knowledge of the said sale transaction, never challenged it.
that defendant No.3 and her children have failed to establish their possession and enjoyment over schedule A property. The Trial Court held that schedule B property is part and parcel of schedule A property. Similarly, the claims made by defendant Nos.5 and 6 and claim of defendant No.1 over a portion of schedule A property was also negatived by the Trial Court. Consequently, suit was decreed and the counterclaim filed by the defendants was dismissed. The Trial Court further granted permanent injunction, thereby restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.
cognizance of the title deed vide Ex.P.42, the Appellate Court was of the view that plaintiff's testator acquired a valid right and title over the suit land. The Appellate Court has recorded categorically that under Ex.P.42, suit land was delivered to Narayana Prabhu. Referring to Ex.P.1, the Appellate Court was also of the view that defendants have failed to establish the title of their vendor. Referring to Ex.P.2, the Appellate Court has also recorded a categorical finding that the sale certificate issued in favour of the defendant's vendor does not pertain to the suit land. It is in this background, the Appellate Court also held that if the defendant No.1's vendor has no saleable title, he could not have conveyed the suit land under registered sale deed dated 26.10.1970, vide Ex.P.1. The Appellate Court, on re-assessing the entire evidence on record, has affirmed the conclusions and reasonings recorded by the Trial Court and consequently, appeal is dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge.
plaintiff. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
NC: 2023:KHC:40343 RSA No. 665 of 2022
defendants' vendor in a auction sale and the consequent sale certificate issued by the authority do not pertain to the suit land. On examining the findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts, this Court is more than satisfied that the findings recorded by both the Courts do not suffer from any infirmities.
Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands 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 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the title derived from a registered Will and the invalidity of the defendants' title based on a defective sale deed require reconsideratio
Whether the second appeal filed by unsuccessful defendants against the decree on restitution of property based on testamentary succession has any merit.
If there are no infirmities in the lower courts' findings that the testator was the absolute owner and the defendants could not convey title without saleable rights, does a substantial question of law
SMT. GANGU AND ORS.
HEMALATHA B. SUVARNA AND ANR.
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
