R. Nagaraj Vs Sri R Rajashekar

SRI. R. RAJASHEKAR S/O RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO. 1/1, SHREE NIVASA 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, AKSHYANAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE - 560016.

¶16

THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK BANASWADI BRANCH NO. 45/81, B. CHANNASANDRA

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

5^TH MAIN ROAD, KASTURI NAGAR BANASWADI NEXT TO S.R. KALYAN MANTAP BENGALURU - 560043.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C. CHANASPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.1963/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

¶24

IN RFA NO. 2785/2024

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

R. NAGARAJ S/O RAMANNA @ RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 177, RADHA NILAYA 2^ND BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH .N.V, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

R. RAJA S/O RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 37, 4^TH MAIN 8^TH CROSS, SIR MV NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK BANASWADI BRANCH NO. 45/81, B CHANNASANDRA 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KASTURI NAGAR BANASWADI, NEXT TO S.R. KALYAN MANTAP BENGALURU - 560043.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C. CHANASPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶37

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.07.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.1962/2024 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶38

IN RFA NO. 2788/2024

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

R. NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 177, RADHA NILAYA 2^ND BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶41

...APPELLANT

¶42

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH .N.V, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

R. RAJA BABU S/O RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

2^ND BLOCK, 7^TH CROSS, AKSHAY NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE - 560016.

¶49

THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK BANASWADI BRANCH, NO. 45/81 B. CHANNASANDRA, 5^TH MAIN ROAD KASTURI NAGAR, BANASWADI NEXT TO S.R. KALYAN MANTAP BENGALURU - 560043.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR C. CHANASPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;)

¶52

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.07.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.1961/2024 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶53

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

¶54

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶55

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶56

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with

¶57

the consent of learned counsel on record, the appeals are

¶58

heard finally.

¶59

5 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The ranks of the parties are referred as they are

¶63

ranked before the Trial Court.

¶64

These three appeals are preferred by the appellant, who is the full brother of plaintiffs in O.S.No.1961/2024, O.S.No.1962/2024 and O.S.No.1963/2024, calling in question the judgments and decrees passed in the said suits. The suits were instituted by the plaintiffs–donees seeking return of original title deeds, which had been pledged with the second respondent–Bank by the present appellant. The plaintiffs contended that they had cleared the outstanding loan amounts and were, therefore, entitled to the return of the original documents.

¶65

Since all the three appeals arise out of

¶66

inter-connected transactions and involve a common question of law and facts, particularly disputes inter se between full brothers, this Court has taken up all the three

¶67

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

appeals together for final disposal by this common judgment.

¶70

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶71

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1961/2024,

¶72

O.S.No.1962/2024 and O.S.No.1963/2024 instituted suits

¶73

against the National Co-operative Bank seeking return of original title documents pertaining to the respective suit schedule properties. It is the uniform case of the plaintiffs that the present appellant–R.Nagaraj acquired the suit schedule properties under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.01.2006 from one Shashikala and also obtained another property under a Gift Deed dated 19.12.2005 executed by his mother.

¶74

It is further pleaded that the appellant thereafter

¶75

executed a registered Gift Deed dated 12.12.2017 in favour of his father Ramanna @ Ram Reddy, conveying all the aforesaid properties. The father, in turn, executed three separate Gift Deeds dated 09.08.2018 in favour of

¶76

7 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

his three sons/plaintiffs, thereby gifting the respective properties to them.

¶80

In terms of the express clauses contained in the Gift Deeds, the Donee’s were authorized to discharge the loans raised by the appellant in respect of the suit schedule properties and to secure release of the original title documents from the Bank. Pursuant thereto, each of the plaintiffs cleared the outstanding loan amounts and instituted independent suits seeking return of the original documents from the Bank on the strength of the Gift Deeds executed in their favour.

¶81

All the three suits were tried independently . After full-fledged trial and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed all the three suits and directed the defendant - Bank to return all the original title documents to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present appellant has preferred these three appeals.

¶82

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

This Court has heard the learned counsel

¶85

appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1–plaintiffs, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2–Bank.

¶86

The following points arise for consideration in all the three appeals:

¶87

(i) Whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge the judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.1961/2024, O.S.No.1962/2024 and O.S.No.1963/2024?

¶88

(ii) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court warrant interference by this Court in appeal?

¶89

(iii) What order?

¶90

Findings on Point Nos.(i) and (ii) :-

¶91

On a careful and closer examination of the title documents placed on record, it is manifest that the plaintiffs in all the three suits trace their title in respect of

¶92

9 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

the suit schedule properties under registered Gift Deeds executed by their father, Ramanna @ Ram Reddy, dated 09.08.2018. These Gift Deeds are stated to have been executed subsequent to the appellant herein having conveyed the very same properties in favour of his father under registered Gift Deeds dated 12.12.2017.

¶96

The appellant has disputed the validity and legal efficacy of the said Gift Deeds and would contend that he has instituted comprehensive suits questioning the same, which are stated to be pending adjudication in O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019. However, in all the three suits giving rise to the present appeals, the Trial Court has adverted in detail to the Gift Deeds executed by the appellant in favour of his father, which are marked at Exs.P.4 & P.5, being the registered Gift Deeds dated 12.12.2017, and has also taken due cognizance of the subsequent Gift Deeds executed by the father in favour of his three sons, namely the plaintiffs.

¶97

10 -

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to

¶101

extract the relevant covenants contained in the Gift Deeds dated 09.08.2018 executed by Ramanna @ Ram Reddy in favour of his three sons. Paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the said Gift Deeds, which have a direct bearing on the controversy in issue, are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶102

"2. That the title of the Donor to the property hereby conveyed is good, marketable and subsisting and that it is his self acquired property and that he has the power to Gift the same and that there is no impediment for this Gift under any law, decree, order or contract.

¶103

3. That all rates, taxes and cess relating to the schedule property have been paid by the Donor up to date.

¶104

4. That the Donor shall whenever so required by the Donee, do and executed all such acts, deeds and things for more fully and perfectly assuring the title of the Donee to the property hereby Gifted.

¶105

5. That the Donor has this day handed over the peaceful vacant possession the Donee is liberty to pay liabilities and to get release all the original

¶106

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

documents, pertaining to Schedule mentioned property which were in the custody of the National Co-operative Bank Ltd., Banaswadi, Bangalore, after discharging entire mortgage amount along with accrued interest if any. Further the Donee is also authorized to obtain the original documents from the said Bank.

¶109

6. That the Donee has accepted the Gift."

¶110

(emphasis supplied)

¶111

On a careful reading of the extracted covenants

¶112

contained in the registered Gift Deeds dated 09.08.2018, executed by Ramanna @ Ram Reddy in favour of his three sons, who are the plaintiffs in the respective suits, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs are asserting their right and title to the suit schedule properties solely on the strength of the said registered Gift Deeds. The covenants unequivocally disclose that, pursuant to the authority conferred under the Gift Deeds, all the three plaintiffs have discharged the loans earlier raised by the appellant herein by pledging the original title documents with

¶113

12 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

respondent No.2–Bank. In terms of Clause-5 of the registered Gift Deeds, the plaintiffs were expressly authorised to secure release of the original title deeds upon clearance of the loan liabilities. It is in exercise of this contractual and proprietary right flowing from the Gift Deeds that the plaintiffs instituted three independent suits seeking return of the original title documents from the Bank.

¶117

The Trial Court, upon due appreciation of the documentary evidence, more particularly the registered Gift Deeds executed by the appellant in favour of his father dated 12.12.2017 and the subsequent Gift Deeds executed by the father in favour of the plaintiffs dated 09.08.2018, has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have established a lawful entitlement to seek return of the original title documents.

¶118

The appellant has candidly admitted that he has already instituted comprehensive civil suits questioning the

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶120

13 -

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

Gift Deeds and asserting his alleged rights in O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019, which are presently pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. Mere return of the original title documents to the plaintiffs, who claim under registered Gift Deeds and have admittedly cleared the loan liability, does not divest the appellant of any substantive right nor does it render the pending suits infructuous. Unless and until the appellant succeeds in establishing his right, title and interest in the properties by impeaching the registered Gift Deeds dated 12.12.2017 and 09.08.2018, he cannot claim any vested or enforceable right so as to question the decrees passed in the present suits.

¶123

This Court finds that the Trial Court has

¶124

meticulously adverted to the chain of title and the relevant covenants of the registered documents and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in directing respondent No.2– Bank to return the original title deeds to the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from

¶125

14 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

perversity, arbitrariness or misapplication of law. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any material infirmity or legal error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

¶129

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant lacks locus standi to assail the decrees passed in the three suits instituted by the donee’s seeking return of original documents. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in these appeals. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the Negative.

¶130

Point No.(iii):- In the light of the findings recorded on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶131

ORDER

¶132

(i) All the three appeals are hereby dismissed.

¶133

15 -

¶134

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

(ii) It is clarified that the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1961/2024, O.S.No.1962/2024 and O.S.No.1963/2024, as affirmed by this Court, shall not operate as a bar to the appellant in prosecuting and substantiating his rights, title and interest, if any, in the pending suits bearing O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019, in accordance with law.

¶137

(iii) All rival contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged and decided in the aforesaid pending suits.

¶138

(iv) The return of original title documents by respondent No.2–Bank in favour of the respective plaintiffs pursuant to the decrees under challenge shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending in O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019.

¶139

(v) In view of the findings recorded on Point Nos.(i) and (ii), all the interlocutory applications, namely I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 in RFA No.2793/2024; I.A.Nos.2/2024

¶140

NC: 2026:KHC:2865 RFA No. 2793 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024 RFA No. 2788 of 2024

¶141

16 -

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

and 3/2024 in RFA No.2785/2024; and I.A.Nos.2/2024 and 3/2024 in RFA No.2788/2024, stand rejected.

¶144

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶145

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

R. Nagaraj v. Sri R Rajashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Nagaraj v. Sri R Rajashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sakamma Vs Maruvamma

Sri. Hanumaiah Vs Smt. Jayamma

Suresh S v Vs Smt. S.v.Uma

Sri Vijayakumar C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Venkatalakshmamma Vs Sri. Venkataswamy

Kasturi Bhadavane Kshemabivriddhi Sangh (R) Vs Sri H Srinivasaiah