- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200492 OF 2024 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: SRI. VIDYASAGAR S/O SIDRAM SADNANOOR AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HALLIKHED-B VILLAGE, NOW AT TEACHER COLONY HUMNABAD TQ.HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR – 585 330. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O LATE PANDARINATH HONNIKERI AGED: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WANJARI, HUMNABAD TQ.HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR – 585 330. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2020 BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, AT BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.41/2013 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, AT HUMNABAD AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND ALSO TO GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF TO WHICH THE APPELLANT IS FOUND ENTITLED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 2. This regular second appeal is by the defendant challenging the concurrent findings given by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.41/2013 dated 12.03.2020 and the II-Additional - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 District and Sessions Court, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’ for short) in R.A.No.59/2020 dated 20.06.2024, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of her title to the suit schedule property, for permanent injunction and recovery of possession came to be decreed by the trail Court and the first appellate Court dismissing the Regular Appeal filed by the defendant. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 04.06.2012 for a sum of `1,56,000/- and has put up construction of residential house and residing therein. She has alleged that defendant concocted a sale deed dated 25.08.2012 and his mother impersonated as plaintiff and they got the sale deed executed. When she came to know about it, she approached the accused and questioned him. Defendant promising to get a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 cancellation deed executed, took her to the sub registrar office, Humnabad on 08.11.2012 and manage to get a document executed by the plaintiff as a consent deed by playing fraud on her. Plaintiff came to known about it only when she verified the TMC records. The original documents dated 08.11.2012 and 25.08.2012 are in the custody of defendant as he took them to get her loan and hence the suit for declaration and injunction. 4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff got the plaint amended alleging that during the pendency of the suit defendant has dispossessed her and sought for recovery of possession. 5. Defendant admit the ownership of the plaintiff over suit schedule property vide sale deed dated 04.06.2012. However, he has claimed that she agreed to sell the same to him and executed sale deed dated 25.08.2012. He has contended that on the date of registration of document, since plaintiff was having - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 urgent work she went to Hallikhed-B and permitted her sister to appear before the sub registrar and register the document and accordingly sale deed came to be executed. So far as consent deed dated 04.06.2012 is concerned, the defendant has contended that later plaintiff voluntarily approached the defendant and admitting the sale deed, offered to execute a consent deed and accordingly before the sub-registrar she has executed the consent deed. Defendant also claimed that he has constructed the residential house in the suit schedule property and to make wrongful gain, plaintiff has come up with a false case and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial Court framed necessary issue and additional issue. 7. At the trial, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and one witness as PW2. She has relied upon Ex.P1 to 5. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 8. On the other hand, defendant examined as DW1 and one of the attesting witness as DW2 and got marked Ex.D1 to 8. 9. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted declaration that the sale deed dated 25.08.2012 and consent deed dated 08.11.2012 are null and void and cancelled them. It ordered for recovery of possession of suit schedule property and directed the defendant hand over the possession within a period of 30 days from the date of decree. 10. Aggrieved by the same, defendant approach the first appellate Court in R.A.No.59/2020, which also came to be dismissed. 11. Challenging both the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and first appellate Court, defendant has approached this Court contending that both Courts have failed to appreciate the cogent and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 convince evidence lead by the defendant. In the absence of any convincing evidence, they have erred in holding that the construction of house in the suit schedule property is made by the plaintiff, only on the basis of testimony of PW2. 12. Heard arguments and perused the records. 13. It is not in dispute that plaintiff purchased suit schedule property when it was vacant site through registered sale deed dated 04.06.2012 for `1,56,000/-. It is the specific case of the defendant that plaintiff agreed to sell the same to him for `1,56,000/- and executed sale deed dated 25.08.2012. Certainly a doubtful arise as to why within a period of two months plaintiff would decide to sell the site purchased by her for the same value, especially when she has incurred expenses for registration etc,. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 14. According to the defendant himself, when the sale deed dated 25.08.2012 was registered, plaintiff was not present and as per the written statement averments she had authorized her sister to appear before the sub registrar and get the document registered. Admittedly there is no written authentication given by plaintiff to her sister to register the document in question. However, the evidence on record disclose that it was the mother of the defendant who impersonated as plaintiff and got the sale deed registered. 15. Both the trial Court as well as first appellate Court found the evidence lead by the defendant regarding the payment of sale consideration and execution of the document not reliable trust worthy. So far the evidence on behalf of the defendant regarding the consent deed dated 08.11.2012 also, both courts held that the defendant has failed to establish the same. They held that it is the plaintiff who has constructed the residential house on suit schedule property and she was - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:674 RSA No. 200492 of 2024 dispossessed by the defendant during the pendency of the suit and this fact is admitted by the DW2. The findings of the fact by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court is just and proper and it is consistent with the evidence placed on record. This court finds no perversity in the conclusions arrived at by them. 16. Certainly no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly the same stand dismissed. In view of disposal of main appeal, pending IAs, if any, stand disposed off as no further order is required. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42