Dismissed

Sri. C Nagaraj v. Smt. Prashanthi G. Gowda

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024RSA/1618/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Regular Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration that a sale deed was void due to lack of consideration and alleged fraud. The court held the appeal meritless as the appellant failed to substantiate claims of fraud or mistake, noting his employment made him unreasonable to sign such a document under a pretext. The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission without interference with the lower courts' judgment and decree.

Sri. C Nagaraj Vs Smt. Prashanthi G. Gowda — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1618 OF 2023 (DEC/POS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. C NAGARAJ S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O LAKKAVALLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. PRASHANTHI G GOWDA W/O GOVINDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS C/O M.K. SHIVARAME GOWDA YEMMANAHADLU ESTATE ADIGEBYLUL VILLAGE HIREGADDE POST, MEGUNDA HOBLI KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 126.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED IN RA No.02/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R. PURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2022

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶17

PASSED IN OS No. 69/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff

¶22

challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 in R.A. No. 2/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2022 in O.S. No. 69/2017 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the trial Court.

¶24

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property has been granted in his favour by the Tahasildar, N.R. Pura, as per grant certificate dated 07.07.1990 with a non-alienation condition. Thereafter,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶26

the revenue records were modified in to the name of the plaintiff. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was in need of financial assistance in the year 1999 and as such, he had approached one Sri. Nataraj son of Manjappa Gowda for financial assistance and the said Sri. Nataraj agreed to advance the amount in favour of the plaintiff, subject to the condition that plaintiff shall put his signature on a particular loan document prepared thereunder. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff was working as a Clerk in S.R.J. P.U. College, Balehonnur, he was called by

¶27

the said Sri. Nataraj to come to the Office of Sub-Registrar and therefore, a document dated 10.05.1999 was executed and thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the said document dated 10.05.1999 is a sale deed and therefore it is the case of the plaintiff that he has not received consideration amount as stipulated in the document alleged to have been styled as sale deed dated 10.05.1999. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 10.05.1999 is void and not binding on him.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶29

On service of suit summons, the defendant

¶30

entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant that the averments made by the plaintiff regarding Sri. Nataraj is not correct as the said Sri. Nataraj is not a party to the suit. It is also contended by the defendant that, the plaintiff is well aware of the facts as he was working in education department under the management of Balehonnour Education Trust and it is also stated in the written statement that, the plaintiff has affixed his signature in the office of Sub-Registrar to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant after receiving the sale consideration and accordingly it is the case of the defendant that suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

The trial Court, considering the pleadings on record, formulated issues for consideration. In order to establish his case the plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and produced 55 documents and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.55. On the other

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶33

hand, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and got marked 8 documents and the same were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8. The trial Court, on considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12.04.2022 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had preferred R.A. No. 2/2023 before the First Appellate Court. Said appeal was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2017. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶34

Sri. G.S. Balagangadhar, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced

¶36

on issue No. 4 as it is the burden cast on the respondent/defendant to prove the transfer of

¶37

consideration amount as per the registered sale deed

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶40

dated 10.05.1999 and accordingly, he sought for interference by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as there is no transfer of consideration amount as per the registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999, the sale deed itself

¶41

is null and void and both the Courts below ought to have nullified the said sale deed and in the absence of the same, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with in this appeal.

¶42

Having taken note of the submissions made by

¶43

the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property had been granted in favour of the plaintiff as per the grant order dated 07.07.1990 (Ex.P.1). Thereafter, the name of the plaintiff was shown in the RTC extracts. However, a perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court makes it clear that the plaintiff was working as a Clerk at S.R.J. P.U. College, Balehonnur. The plaintiff has executed the

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶45

registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999 (Ex.P.7) in favour of the defendant. The said sale deed was challenged by the plaintiff on the ground that the sale consideration has not been passed through pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the defendant had asked the plaintiff to come near the office of Sub-Registrar to pay the loan and in the pretext of loan agreement, alleged sale deed has been executed. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the defendant has committed fraud against the plaintiff. In this connection it is evident from the averments made in the plaint wherein the plaintiff has stated that he had approached one Sri. Nataraj son of Manjappa Gowda for financial assistance and after he received a call from the said Sri. Nataraj, he came near the office of Sub-Registrar. Admittedly said Sri. Nataraj has not been examined with regard to the veracity of the registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999. Recitals in the registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999 reads as under:

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶47

” PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀÆtð ªÉÆ§®UÀÄ JA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (gÀÆ. 80,000-00) FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¤«ÄäAzÀ £ÀUÀzÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ «PÀæ¬Ä¹ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁ©¯Á¢AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀÄ¥ÀzÀÄðªÀ»¹ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.”

¶48

The recitals in the registered sale deed dated

¶49

10.05.1999 demonstrates the transfer of Rs.80,000/- to the plaintiff by the defendant in terms of the sale deed dated 10.05.1999. If at all the plaintiff is really being aggrieved by the said registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999, he should have challenged the same immediately before the trial Court. After the sale deed has been executed on 10.05.1999, the suit has been filed on 17.11.2017. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the sale deed dated 10.05.1999 was executed under mistake of fact that it was

¶50

a loan agreement and also failed to establish that fraud has been committed by the defendant, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶52

In that view of the matter I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶53

However, insofar as the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is concerned, the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record and by looking into the recitals in the sale deed dated 10.05.1999, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶54

Be that as it may, the plaintiff is not a rustic villager and he is working in an educational institution. Therefore, he should not have signed the document styled as `Sale Deed’ on the pretext that it is a loan agreement. That itself would support the view taken in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as the appellant has not made out any grounds

¶55

10 -

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:35819 RSA No. 1618 of 2023

¶57

to formulate the substantial question of law as required

¶58

under Section 100 of CPC.

¶59

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶60

LRS

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri. C Nagaraj v. Smt. Prashanthi G. Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C Nagaraj v. Smt. Prashanthi G. Gowda

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

Sri. Gangappa Vs Sri. Ashwathappa

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri T N Kempahanumaiah

Sri Narayanappa Vs Smt Rathnamma

Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri. Devaraju

Ms Manjula Reddy Vs Mr K Chethan

Smt. Maridevi Vs Smt.Lakshmi