Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13548 (KAR)

NARASAMMA v. SRI BASAVARAJU

RSA/60/2025 · 2025-03-05

Ashok S Kinagi

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NARASAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE HIREGUNTANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501 2. SMT UMADEVI D/O SRINIVAS W/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O THERUBEEDI, HAGALAVADI GAGE, C.N.HALLI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572214 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHASKAR RAO M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O KATHIKEHAL VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 KANDIKERE HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572214 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANU R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.09.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.27/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.208/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2024 passed in R.A.No.27/2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli and the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2024 passed in O.S.No.208/2020 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakana Halli. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants No.2 and 3, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for the declaration of title and for a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Narasimhaiah S/o. Cheluvaiah, under a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1990 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Narasimhaiah is the father of defendants No.1 and 2 and grand father of defendant No.3. 4. It is contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Erarangaiah S/o. Rangaiah, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 resident of Janehar Village who sold it to one Guddanayaka, under a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1960. The Guddanayaka, in turn, sold the suit schedule property to one Chikkobalaiah under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1962. Said Chikkobalaiah sold the same in favour of late Narasimhaiah on 20.03.1967 under a registered sale deed. The father of defendants No.1 and 2 sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed. 5. It is contended that there was a clerical mistake in the name of the village in the sale deed, whereas, instead of mentioning Janehar village, wrongly mentioned as Karthrikehal village and further from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property situated at Janehar village as per the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed. The plaintiff’s vendor had no properties in Karthrikehal in Sy.No.34. It is further contended that the plaintiff requested the vendor to execute a rectification deed to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 rectify the name of the village but the vendor had went on postponing on one or the other pretext. Ultimately he passed away on 03.09.1991. 6. The plaintiff approached the family members of the vendor to execute a rectification deed and filed an application for effecting khata in his name. The defendants filed objections to the said application. The plaintiff, got issued a legal notice on 27.06.2017 calling upon the defendants to execute a rectification deed. The defendants suppressing that they have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff’s son in O.S.No.156/2017, which is pending for consideration on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli. It is further contended that the defendants have denied plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 7. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and admitted that the vendor’s wife had filed a suit in O.S.No.156/2017 against the plaintiff’s son and pending of RRT proceedings. It is denied that the plaintiff requested the vendor to execute a rectification deed. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the names of the defendants are appearing in the revenue records. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit for declaration of title. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2, and marked 26 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.26. On the other hand, defendants, to substantiate their defence, defendant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 No.3 was examined as DW-1, examined one witness as DW-2 and marked 9 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.9. 10. The trial Court, on assessing the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part. It is declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The relief for direction to the defendants to execute the rectification deed or the sale deed dated 23.08.1990 was dismissed, and a permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants No.2 and 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.208/2020, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.27/2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli. The first appellate Court, on reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 13.09.2024. Defendants No.2 and 3 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this regular second appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendants No.2 and 3. 12. Learned counsel for defendants No.2 and 3 submits that the plaintiff’s vendor had never executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and further said that the sale deed, produced by the plaintiff, is concocted document. He submits that the parties have not acted upon the registered sale deed. Based on the registered sale deed, whereby, the name of the plaintiff was not entered in the revenue records. He submits that the names of defendants No.2 and 3 are continued in the revenue records as of today. He submits that the vendor of the plaintiff never delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, a suit for mere declaration of title is not maintainable. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 is barred by limitation. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendants No.2 and 3. 14. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1. He reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that the vendor Narasimhaiah had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, produced the documents, where Exs. P.1 to P.3 and P.5 are the copies of the registered sale deeds. Ex.P.4 is the original sale deed, under which, the plaintiff had purchased suit schedule property from the father of defendants No.1 to 2. Ex.P.6 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff, calling upon the defendants to execute a rectification deed regarding the change of name of the village of the said property, under the registered sale deed. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the reply notice issued by the defendants to the plaintiff. Ex.P.8 is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 the copy of the complaint wherein the plaintiff has lodged complaint against the defendants. Ex.P.9 is the acknowledgement issued by the police stating that the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants is civil in nature. Ex.P.10 is the RTC extract. Ex.P.11 is the copy of the order passed by the Tahasildar. Ex.P.12 is the RTC extract. Ex.P.13 is the registered sale deed. Ex.P.14 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.156/2017 filed by the defendants against the son of the plaintiff i.e., Mohan. Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.156/2017 whereas, the defendants disclosed that the defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff’s son regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the plaintiff’s son in O.S.No.156/2017. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.21 are the RTC extracts regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.P.22 is the copy of the Mutation Records. Ex.P.23. and 24 are the copies of the Nil Encumbrance certificates. Ex.P.25 is the certified copy of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 the deposition of DW-1 in O.S.No.156/2017. Ex.P.27 is the certified copies of deposition of PW-2 in O.S.No.156/2017. 15. The plaintiff, to prove that the Narasimhaiah had executed a registered sale deed, examined one witness as PW-2. He deposed that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed, from Narasimhaiah, and said vendor, delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. Since the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property. During the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 except denying the execution of the registered sale deed, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. 16. On the other hand, defendant No.3 was examined as DW-1. She reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. To prove the defence, the defendants, they have produced the documents, Ex.D.1 is the copy of the application Ex.D.2 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 and Ex.D.3 are the certified copies of the registered sale deeds, Ex.D.4 and D.5 are the certified copies of the RTC and MR, Ex.D.6 is the copy of the akarband, Ex.D.7 and D.8 are the copies of the nil encumbrance certificate, Ex.D.9 is the copy of the Death certificate. 17. Further defendants to prove that they are in possession of the suit property, they have examined one witness as DW-2, who has deposed that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. Though the defendants have admitted the execution of registered sale deed dated 23.08.1990, but they have denied that it does not pertain to the suit property. It is contended that the suit schedule property is situated at Janehar village and not in Karthrikehalli. Admittedly, there is a registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.34, measuring 2 acres 9 guntas, and the plaintiff has shown the boundary in the suit schedule property. The defendants except contending that the suit property situated at Janehar, but not at Karthrikehalli, no - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 evidence was produced, to prove their defence. Further the defendants had a knowledge regarding the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. 18. The defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No.156/2017 against the plaintiff’s son, Mohan. Plaintiff’s son has filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed. Though the defendants disputed, having the knowledge regarding the execution of a registered sale deed, by their father, they did not chose to challenge the registered sale deed. Though the sale deed was executed in the year 1990, but the revenue records stand in the name of the defendants. 19. Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act mandates that anyone acquiring rights in a land, as holder occupant, owner and etc., must report their acquisition to the prescribed officer within three months. The proviso for Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides that where a person acquiring a right by virtue of a - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the prescribed Officer. It is the duty of the registering officer to send a report to the revenue authorities regarding such registration. Merely because the name of the plaintiff is not entered in the revenue records, is not a ground to decline the registered sale deed as invalid. The plaintiff had acquired the title by a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1990, At the cost of repetition, the defendants have not challenged the registered sale deed executed by their propositus in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed executed by the Narasimhaiah is binding on the defendants. 20. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court, considering the material on record, were justified in declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. A perusal of the recital of the registered sale deed dated 23.08.1990 discloses that the defendants No. 1 & 2’s father delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9474 RSA No. 60 of 2025 possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed and a decree for the permanent injunction. Both the Courts below have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the cost. In view of the disposal of the main appeal I.A.No.2/25 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. SD/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK