- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.94 OF 2022 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: SMT. T. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT DESHADPETE SIDLAGHATTA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT NOW PRESENTLY RESIDING WITH SMT. L. VIDYADARI RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.279/G M G COLONY BENGALURU - 560 026. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AMARAVATHAMMA W/O B V SANJEEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT CHOWKALLI VILLAGE AMLET OF GOPAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 2. THE BANNIKUPPE GRAMAPANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109. 3. SRI. CHIDANANDA S/O B V SANJEEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT CHOWKALLI VILLAGE AMLET OF GOPAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.156/2019 (OLD RA No.107/2010) ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANGARA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2010 PASSED IN OS No.27/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/ plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2021, passed in R.A.No.156/2019 (old R.A.No.107/2010) by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, and the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2010, passed in O.S.No.27/2005 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Ramanagara. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows : The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction, in the alternative for the relief of possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner in possession - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had purchased the vacant sites bearing Nos.114/22, 114/23, 114/24 and 114/28 under four different sale deeds. The plaintiff has purchased site No.114/24 under a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1992. When the plaintiff went near the plaint schedule property in the last week of January, 2005, defendant No.1 came near the suit property and attempted to claim a right regarding the same, based on the fraudulent document dated 1.3.1993. One Sri. B.V.Sanjeeva Reddy is the scribe of the sale deeds dated 18/11/1992 and 01/03/1993, standing in the name of the plaintiff. The said B.V.Sanjeeva Reddy assisted the plaintiff in the said transaction. The said B.V.Sanjeeva Reddy is none other than, the husband of defendant No.1, who actively created the document in the name of his wife, and started making a false claim concerning the suit property as the plaintiff is an illiterate lady and that, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff, the husband of defendant No.1 created the registered sale deed, and got the katha and other documents in the name - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has no other option, except to file a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction alternatively, for the relief of possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that she is the wife of B.V.Sanjeeva Reddy. It is contended that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit site for a valuable consideration of Rs.8,000/- under the registered sale deed dated 01/03/1993 and the said consideration amount was paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the vacant site and put defendant No.1 in the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The suit for mere declaration of title, without seeking a cancellation of registered sale deed, is not maintainable. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, re-casted the issues. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 marked 23 documents as exhibits P.1 to P.23. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined herself, through her power of attorney, son, Chidananda, as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and marked 11 documents as exhibits D.1 to D.11. 3.3. The trial Court, on the assessment of the oral, and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment dated 15/06/2010. 3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.107/2010 (New R.A.No.156/2019). The Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 25.10.2021. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff never executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. He submits that Ex.D.6 does not bear the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 signature of the plaintiff. He submits that defendant No.1 filed an application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation with regard to the alleged signature of plaintiff over Ex.D.6. The trial Court rejects the said application. In the absence of an expert’s opinion about Ex.D.6, the Courts below erred in recording its finding that, defendant No.1 has established that the plaintiff has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. He submits that the suit for declaration of title is maintainable. He further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff was well within the time. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are arbitrary, erroneous, and the same are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 7. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as the plaintiff has purchased the said property under the registered sale - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 deed. The plaintiff contends that the plaintiff had not executed the registered sale deed regarding the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1, and the said sale deed is marked as Ex.D.6. From a perusal of Ex.D.6, it discloses that the plaintiff had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property. Though, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish his case, and she cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant. Admittedly, the registered sale deed was executed. However, the plaintiff did not seek cancellation of the registered sale deed as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Unless the plaintiff seeks cancellation of a registered sale deed, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Though, the plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 played a fraud on the plaintiff, and got executed a registered sale deed, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to lodge a complaint - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 against defendant No.1, though, the sale deed was executed in 1993. Based on the registered sale deed dated 1.3.1993, the name of defendant No.1 was mutated, and from the perusal of the records, it is apparent that defendant.no.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, by leading oral evidence, is/was trying to vary the terms and conditions of Ex.D.6, i.e. the original sale deed. Any amount of oral evidence to contradict the terms of written document is impermissible under Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish that, on the date of institution of the suit, the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and further failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. The Appellate Court, on re- assessment of oral and documentary evidence, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff, to establish that defendant No.1 has played a fraud, except the oral testimony, has not - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9044 RSA No. 94 of 2022 examined any attesting witness to the registered sale deed. Further, the plaintiff has not pleaded regarding the particulars of fraud as required under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. Both the Courts below, have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law, that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed; ii) The judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE rs