The appellants challenged concurrent findings of fact by lower courts dismissing their suit for declaration of title and injunction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC, as documentary evidence supported the finding that the plaintiffs' mother had sold the property. The appeal was dismissed.
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 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 797 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O NO.2868, MC COLONY, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE KOLAMAPALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAKOTA POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.
THE RESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT NADUVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.03.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.232/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2367/2005 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
NC: 2024:KHC:37594 RSA No. 797 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
Assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded by
the Courts below, the plaintiff is in regular second appeal before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:37594 RSA No. 797 of 2016
defendants were placed ex-parte. Neither defendant No.1 filed any written statement.
NC: 2024:KHC:37594 RSA No. 797 of 2016
No.14, which is within one month and 20 days from the date of purchase from the plaintiff’s mother. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the sale deed dated 04.03.1995 executed in favour of one Venkata Reddy.
27.01.1996 executed by defendant No.2 to 5 in favour of defendant No.1, the documents produced by the plaintiffs clearly indicate that subsequent to the purchase by the plaintiffs’ mother, she has sold the property in favour of defendant No.14 on 29.06.1951, after the sale in favour of defendant No.14, there has been subsequent sales, the suit is of the year 2005, the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove that the mother of the plaintiffs has not executed the registered sale deed as per Ex.P3 in favour of defendant No.14, other than mere assertion that there is no execution of sale by the mother of the plaintiffs, no material is forthcoming to disbelieve the sale in favour of defendant No.14 and the subsequent sale thereafter. The manner in which the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference under Section 100 CPC and no substantial questions of law arise for consideration and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed.
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate courts correctly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession over the suit property despite the existence of registered sale deeds executed by their mother in f
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
SRI. M. RAJU
M. VARALAKSHMI
M. SRINIVAS
M. JAMUNA
K.S. HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
