Defendant's second appeal challenging concurrent decrees declaring his later-registered sale deed void and confirming plaintiff's title to a site in Chikkabanavara. Court found no substantial question of law; earlier sale deed prevailed and the appeal was dismissed at admission stage.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 460 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY No.29, CHIMINI HILLS CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU - 560 090.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT. K. SUMITHRA
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI Y R SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. J SARASWATHI W/O G A NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A No.233, 14TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE GOKULA 1ST STAGE, MATHIKERE BENGALURU - 560 054.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R S RAVI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI CHANDRAPPA V, ADVOCATE, C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2023 PASSED IN RA No.16/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2013 PASSED IN OS No.188/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023 passed in R.A. No. 16/2020 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, Rural District, Bengaluru, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 in O.S. No. 188/2010 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
Bengaluru North taluk, belonging to one Papaiah and on his demise, legal representatives of said Papaiah have
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
succeeded to the schedule property. It is also stated that the legal representatives of late Papaiah and others formed sites in schedule property during 1992 and legal representatives of Papaiah – P. Muniswamiah and Puttaiah have executed GPA in favour of one Ramesh on 16.01.1992 to execute registered sale deed in respect of sites formed in land bearing survey No. 28/2. In that view of the matter, plaintiff has purchased suit schedule property as per registered sale deed dated 30.09.2003 from the vendors and the said sale deed has been executed by the agent of the legal representatives of late Papaiah, i.e., Ramesh and therefore, it is contention of the plaintiff that as per the registered sale deed dated 30.09.2003, the plaintiff has become the owner of schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that plaintiff has put up compound wall around the suit schedule property leaving small space on the northern side adjacent to site No. 96 to enter into the suit schedule property. However, defendant without any right over the suit schedule property and in the absence of plaintiff, has
demolished the compound wall and as such, plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 188/2010 seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
plaintiff is the owner of schedule property in terms of the sale deed dated 30.09.2003 and sale deed dated 28.10.2009 registered before Sub-Registrar’s office, Bengaluru held as void document as the said document has been made subsequent to the registered sale deed dated 30.09.2003, having been purchased by the plaintiff in respect of schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant has preferred R.A. No. 16/2020 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 passed in O.S. No. 188/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant has preferred this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
Chandrappa V., learned counsel appearing for caveat respondent.
counsel appearing for the appellant contended that suit itself is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff
has sought for declaration that the sale deed made in favour of defendant is null and void and therefore, the said aspect of the matter was not considered by both the Courts below. He also contended that, even if written statement has been filed by the defendant and case has
not been contested by the defendant and as such, both the Courts below ought to have applied its mind since the suit filed by the plaintiff was for declaration. He also submitted that the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with in this appeal. He further emphasized that the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 88/2014 and plaintiff had withdrawn the suit and thereafter filed O.S. No. 1181/2022 against the defendant seeking the relief of possession and the said aspect would makes it clear that the plaintiff is not in possession of suit
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
schedule property and the said aspect has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts below. Accordingly, he submitted that suit ought not to have been decreed by the trial Court. Accordingly he sought for interference by this Court.
learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent – caveator that though the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 88/2014 against the defendant seeking relief of
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
possession, however the said suit was withdrawn on the ground of jurisdictional aspect and thereafter O.S. No. 1181/2022 was preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking possession on the ground that portion of the compound wall has been demolished by the defendant after the decree was passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 188/2010 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
defendant on 28.10.2009. It is also to be noted that the trial Court after considering the material on record, particularly with regard to Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.11, sale deed dated 28.10.2009 and applying Section 48 of the Transfer of Properties Act, rightly came to the conclusion that priority of rights conferred on transfer of property as plaintiff had purchased the schedule property on 30.09.2003. Strangely the defendant had entered appearance but had not contested the matter, did not choose to file written statement and adduced any evidence
before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court after appreciating the material on record has rightly decreed the suit holding that the sale deed dated 28.10.2009 said to have been executed in favour of defendant is a subsequent sale deed and therefore, no interference is called for insofar as the decree made by the trial Court.
First Appellate Court is concerned, the First Appellate Court after considering Ex.P.46 – sale deed dated 30.09.2003 wherein the sale has been made in favour of
plaintiff, rightly confirmed the decree made by the trial Court.
on the southern side and demolished the compound wall and therefore, a suit appears to have been filed in O.S. No. 1181/2022 seeking possession in respect of encroachment said to have been made by defendant in the site bearing No. 95. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing for appellant as both the Courts below
have taken note of the factual aspects of the matter that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 30.09.2003 much
NC: 2024:KHC:36377 RSA No. 460 of 2023
before the sale deed dated 28.10.2009 made by the said Ramesh (agent of the original owner) in favour of the defendant. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as the appellant has not made out a case for framing of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff, who purchased site No. 95 under sale deed dated 30.09.2003, had priority over the defendant's later purchase dated 28.10.2009 under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Whether the appeal disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Raghavendra Educational Institution Society rep. by its President Smt. K. Sumithra
Smt. J Saraswathi
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
