Dismissed¶75

Smt Soubhagya v. Smt Manjamma

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2025RSA/759/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RSA No. 759 of 2012 (RES), Anant Ramanath Hegde J, 18.08.2025 — Section 43 Transfer of Property Act protection refused where transfer prohibited for 10 years under KHB lease-cum-sale agreement; lessee-vendor conveyed only leasehold rights, not ownership; N. Srinivasa Rao (2006 (4) SCC 214) applied; V. Laxminarasamma ((2009) 5 SCC 478) overruling confined to AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act jurisdiction; Ram Pyare (AIR 1985 SC 694) referred by appellants' counsel; second appeal dismissed, concurrent findings for declaration and possession upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the second appeal was dismissed and the concurrent decrees for declaration and possession in favour of the plaintiff stand. ¶75

Smt Soubhagya Vs Smt Manjamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the second appeal was dismissed and the concurrent decrees for declaration and possession in favour of the plaintiff stand.

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants/defendants, who purchased half the suit property from Rudramma on 27.07.1992 while she had no title, are entitled to protection under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

Given the 10-year prohibition on transfer, the law laid down in N. Srinivasa Rao squarely applies to the facts, defeating the appellants' plea for protection under Section 43 of the TP Act.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

It was undisputed that when the sale deed was executed on 27.07.1992 Rudramma was not the owner; she was only a lessee under the lease-cum-sale agreement executed by the KHB, which contemplated one more sale deed by KHB after expiry of 10 years.

¶49

Key takeaways

When the lease-cum-sale deed was executed by the KHB on 27.07.1992 there was a prohibition to transfer the property for a period of 10 years; Rudramma therefore could not have transferred the property to anybody before expiry of that period.ratio¶59
Although V. Laxminarasamma held the law in N. Srinivas Rao to be incorrect, the overruled ratio related to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and not to Section 43 of the TP Act; hence it does not unsettle the present Section 43 analysis.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (RSA No. 759 of 2012, decided 18.08.2025 by Anant Ramanath Hegde J, High Court of Karnataka) dismissed, upholding concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and possession. The vendor Rudramma held the suit property only as lessee under a 1992 Karnataka Housing Board lease-cum-sale agreement that prohibited transfer for 10 years; her 27.07.1992 sale of half the property to the defendants therefore conveyed no ownership. The Court held that Section 43, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 offers the purchasers no protection because the transfer was prohibited during the 10-year period, the law in N. Srinivasa Rao (2006 (4) SCC 214) applying squarely; and in any event the vendor sold only the rights she possessed (leasehold), not ownership. Reliance on Ram Pyare (AIR 1985 SC 694) did not assist the appellants; although V. Laxminarasamma ((2009) 5 SCC 478) overruled N. Srinivas Rao, the overruled ratio concerned jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, not Section 43 TP Act. As the parties' rights stood duly adjudicated, no fresh suit for eviction by terminating tenancy was required.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2012 (RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT SOUBHAGYA @ SOWBHAGYALAXMI, W/O SRI MANJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶11

SRI MANJACHARI, S/O VIRUPAKSHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR M RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE MANJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.997/2, SANGAMESHWARA NILAYA, KTJ NAGARA, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, DAVANAGERE - 577002.

¶14

BOTH RESIDING AT: H.NO.16, (OLD NO.518/16), NEW D.NO.920/24, LABOUR COLONY, NITUVALLI ROAD, DAVANAGERE.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT MANJAMMA, W/O SRI CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD , R/AT D.NO.920/24, LABOUR COLONY, NITUVALLI ROAD, DAVANAGERE.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 1 CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.2.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.3.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.69/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) DAVANGERE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration and possession.

¶28

The property in question was allotted to one Rudramma under lease-cum-sale agreement in the year 1992. Defendants claim that on the same day, Rudramma sold 1/2 portion of the said property to the defendants.

¶29

The defendants later filed a suit in O.S.No.596/1993 against Rudramma. The said suit ended in a compromise. The plaintiff who is the daughter of Rudramma contends that Rudramma has not signed the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

compromise petition but it was signed by the counsel for the Rudramma. Thereafter, Rudramma died.

¶34

Rudramma's daughter filed the present suit for declaration of title and possession in 2007. The plaintiff claims that the absolute sale deed was executed by the Karnataka Housing Board (for short 'KHB') in favour of Rudramma's daughter on 07.11.2003.

¶35

The defendants, who purchased 1/2 portion of the suit property contended that the plaintiffs cannot seek title over the property as Rudramma had received full consideration amount from the defendants and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶36

The Trial Court held that the sale deed in favour of the defendants by Rudramma is not valid as Rudramma has not acquired any title of the property and she has sold the property on 27.07.1992 when she was not the owner. The Court has come to the conclusion that Rudramma was only a lessee and she did not have title over the property. Consequently, the suit is decreed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The defendants’ appeal is also dismissed. Hence

¶41

this second appeal.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants would contend that the appellants/defendants, who purchased the property from Rudramma on 27.07.1992 are entitled for protection under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'TP Act'). It is his submission that this aspect is not considered by the trial Court as well as by First Appellate Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that both the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit on the premise that the sale deed dated 27.7.1992 is invalid for two reasons:

¶44

(a) Rudramma was not the absolute owner

¶45

(b) There was a prohibition not to sell the property for 10 years.

¶46

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

There is no dispute that when sale deed was executed on 27.07.1992, Rudramma was not the owner of the property. She was only a lessee under the lease-cumsale agreement executed by the KHB and said lease-cumsale agreement contemplated one more sale deed by KHB after expiry of 10 years.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Pyare vs. Ram Narayan and Others¹ to contend that in case the transfer is made by a person who had no title of the property later acquires title over the same property, the purchaser would acquire title on account of such subsequent acquisition of title by the vendor.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff countering the aforementioned submission has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in N. Srinivasa Rao v.

¶52

Special Court under the A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and others² to contend that Section 43

¶53

1 AIR 1985 SC 694

¶54

2 2006 (4) SCC 214

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

of the TP Act would come to the aid of the bona fide purchaser only in a situation where the transaction is not prohibited under any other law.

¶59

There is no dispute that when the lease-cum-sale deed was executed by the KHB on 27.07.1992 in favour of Rudramma, there was a prohibition to transfer the property for a period of 10 years. Thus, Rudramma could not have transferred the property to anybody before expiry of 10 years. This being the position, the law laid down in N. Srinivasa Rao supra would squarely apply to the facts of the case.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Srinivas Rao supra , referred to above is overruled by subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment

¶61

of V.Laxminarasamma vs. A.Yadaiah and others³ .

¶62

This Court has considered the said judgment.

¶63

3 (2009) 5 SCC 478

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

In the last paragraph of the said judgment, it is held that the law in N.Srinivas Rao supra is not a correct law. However, it is to be noticed that the ratio in the judgment in N.Srinivas Rao supra was not relating to the application of Section 43 of Transfer of property Act, it was relating to the jurisdiction of the Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The ratio which has been overruled is relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the aforementioned Act and not the ratio in respect of Section 43 of the TP Act.

¶68

It is relevant to notice that under the sale deed dated 29.07.1992, the vendor claims to have sold the right possessed by the vendor. Admittedly, on the date of the sale, the vendor was not the owner of the property, she was only a lessee. The vendor did not claim to have sold the ownership right. Thus, the purchaser cannot take shelter under Section 43 of TP Act. At best, the purchaser has acquired the lease hold right. Now the suit is filed for possession. Rights of the parties have been duly adjudicated.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:28235 RSA No. 759 of 2012

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Thus, there is no need to ask the plaintiff to file one more suit for eviction by terminating tenancy.

¶73