Dismissed¶63

Shariff Sab v. Shabbir Sab

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2025RSA/542/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 542 of 2025 (INJ), High Court of Karnataka, decided 05.06.2025 by H.P. Sandesh, J. Keywords: Section 100 CPC; substantial question of law; secondary evidence; sale deed dated 03.05.1999; permanent injunction; possession; title follows possession; concurrent findings; dismissal at admission stage; O.S.No.190/2016; R.A.No.15/2024; Bhadravathi.

What did the court decide?

In view of the material showing the sale of 03.05.1999, the sale deed never having been questioned, and title following possession as concurred in by both courts on the oral and documentary evidence, no substantial question of law arises on the consideration of the secondary evidence of the sale deed dated 03.05.1999, and there is no error in the Trial Court's appreciation of questions of fact and law. ¶56

Shariff Sab Vs Shabbir Sab — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the courts below committed an error in holding that secondary evidence of the sale deed dated 03.05.1999, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1, could be considered, such that a substantial question of law had to be framed in the second appeal?

¶56

Court's answer

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Since there is no substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal, the question of admitting the second appeal does not arise; no grounds are made out to admit the appeal or frame any substantial question of law.

¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC — dismissed at the admission stage (H.P. Sandesh, J., High Court of Karnataka, 05.06.2025). Plaintiff obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S.No.190/2016 (I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, judgment and decree dated 02.01.2024) on his case that he purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 by sale deed dated 03.05.1999, registered before the Sub-registrar, and was in possession; the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2024 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi) confirmed the decree by judgment and decree dated 01.03.2025, noting that the sale deed had not been challenged before any competent authority. The appellant-defendant No.1 contended that both courts erred in acting upon secondary evidence of the sale deed and that a substantial question of law required framing. Holding that the sale of 03.05.1999 was never questioned till date, that title follows possession, and that there was no error in the Trial Court's appreciation of questions of fact and law, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose and no grounds were made out to admit the appeal, and dismissed the regular second appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHARIFF SAB

¶11

S/O LATE SRI KALANDAR SAB AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O DHONABHAGHATTA BHADRAVATHI.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SHABBIR SAB

¶16

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

S/O SRI. UMAR SAB

¶18

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶19

JUBEDA BI

¶20

W/O SHARIFF SAB

¶21

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶22

MUBARAK

¶23

S/O SHARIF SAB AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶24

MUBEENA

¶25

W/O RASOOL SAB AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS HOUSEWIFE

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

5. ASIF

¶30

S/O SHARIFF SAB AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS COOLIE WORK

¶31

NUSRATH S/O SHARIF SAB AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶32

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DHONABHAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2025. PASSED IN R.A.NO.15/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.190/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

This second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court by filing a suit is that he is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of filing the suit and defendants are trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶43

The main contention of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and he had purchased the suit schedule property through sale deed dated 03.05.1999 for valuable sale consideration from his vendor i.e., defendant No.1 and the same has been registered before the office of the Sub-registrar and from the date of purchase, he has been in possession of the property. On the date of purchase, it was an agricultural land and property which was purchased by the plaintiff was self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and it was restored by order of the Tahsildar of Bhadravathi and thereby khatha was mutated in the name of the defendant No.1 and thereafter, it was mutated in the name of the plaintiff after purchasing for valuable consideration. The defendants are making attempt to interfere with possession of the plaintiff.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The Trial Court having considering pleadings of the parties, formulated the issues and answered issue Nos.1 to 3 as ‘affirmative’ that the plaintiff is in possession and defendants are making attempt to interfere with possession and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has made out a case to grant the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.16 made an observation with regard to non-execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and also an observation is made that they could have filed a suit for declaration to set aside the same before the appropriate Court. Mere denying the execution of sale deed does not mean to setting up title over the plaint schedule property just to resist the suit. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.17 made an observation that title follows the possession and plaintiff is in possession of the property. The Trial Court in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 also discussed the same and granted the relief of permanent injunction.

¶48

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15/2024. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo,

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

formulated the point whether the learned Judge is justified in holding that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and also taken note of the fact that admittedly, suit property is a vacant land and also taken note of the fact that plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property on 03.05.1999. The First Appellate Court also taken note of crossexamination of D.W.1 regarding handing over of all the original documents to him and the same are in possession of the plaintiff which has been discussed in paragraph No.22 and also made with observation with regarding to the reasoning given by the Trial Court in paragraph No.23 that plaintiff is having better title than the defendants, since the property was sold immediately by the defendant No.1 and also observation is made that till date defendant No.1 has not challenged the sale deed before the competent authority and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, present regular second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶52

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1

¶53

would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

error in holding that secondary evidence of sale deed dated 03.05.1999 is alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 and to that effect, Court has to frame substantial question of law. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the second appeal, material also disclose that sale was made on 03.05.1999 and both the Courts made an observation that said sale deed was never questioned till date and law is also clear that title follows possession and the said observation is made by the Trial Court and the same is concurred by considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the First Appellate Court. When such material is available before the Court, the question of framing any substantial question of law with regard to considering the secondary evidence of sale deed dated 03.05.1999 does not arise and there is no error on the part of the Trial Court in appreciating both question of fact and question of law. When such being the case, when there is no any substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal, question of admitting the second appeal does not arise. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60