- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100535 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAVIKIRAN SHIVAPPA TONNE, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEKKERI-591332, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. RAVIKUMAR SAMBHAJI GIDDA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MULTANI ROAD, GIDDA TOTA, EXAMBA-591244, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. MANOHAR BASAWANT LOHAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: STATION ROAD, SHIVAJI PART, RAIBAG-591317, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. DEEPA W/O. MALLAPPA GADDE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O: MALLAPPA BHIMAPPA GADDE, R/O: GADDE PLOT, WARD NO.4, RAIBAG-591317, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. MADHURI W/O. PRATAP PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O: PRATAP K. PATIL, JEWELERS SHOP, MAIN ROAD, NEAR SWAMI COMPLEX, RAIBAG-591317, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED; R3 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W 41 RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG, IN O.S.NO.5/2016 AND ETC., Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018, passed in O.S.No.5/2016, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), thereby, the suit filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule properties is dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. 2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plot bearing R.S.No.52 measuring 55 x 20 feet situated in R.S.No.638/3 Raibag bearing TMC No.2086 Raibag village, as owner of property on the base of registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 4. It is a case of plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased property from defendant No.1 on 25.04.2001 as per registered sale deed. But thereafter, the defendant No.1 has fraudulently sold the very same property in favour of defendant No.2 on 27.04.2001. Further, the defendant No.2 has sold the property in favour of defendant No.3 and executed the sale deed dated 25.07.2012. Then in turn, the defendant No.3 has sold property to defendant No.4 and executed the registered sale deed dated 29.07.2013. Therefore, all these three transactions of sale deeds are fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff is earlier purchaser of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 25.04.2001. Therefore, filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule properties. 5. The defendants No.1 and 4 have filed written statement and defendants No.2 and 3 have adopted the same written statement. It is pleading of the defendants that originally the land was agricultural land bearing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 R.S.No.638/3 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas situated at Raibag village and was owned by Nagesh, Siddaling, Laxman, Shivarai, Yallappa sons of Mayappa Gadde. The said agricultural land was converted into non-agricultural land for sale purpose by the corporate authorities on 14.05.1991. The original owners had executed GPA in the name of Nagesh Mayappa Gadde authorized to sell the plots. One Trumbak Bujappa Donawade had purchased plot No.51 measuring 55 x 20 feet and got registered sale deed dated 11.11.1996. The defendant No.1 had purchased plot No.52 bearing TMC No.2086 measuring 55 x 20 feet situated at Raibag and got registered from Nagesh who is the GPA holder and land owner for Rs.23,000/- under registered sale deed dated 11.11.1996. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 has sold property in favour of defendant No2 through registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 through registered sale deed dated 30.05.2012 and thereafter, defendant No.3 sold the property through registered sale - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 deed dated 09.08.2012. Thereafter, defendant No.3 has sold the property in favour of defendant No.4 through registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013. Thus, in this way defendant No.4 is in possession over the property on the date of sale. Therefore, the plaintiff is not the owner. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed following issues: i. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in the possession of the suit property, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2001 as on the date of the suit, as pleaded? ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant No.4 making an attempt to put-up construction on the suit property on the basis or Sale Deed dated 29.07.2013? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 iii. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, the 4th defendant is in the possession of the suit property? iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought? v. What order or decree? 7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and two witnesses are examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-18. The defendant No.1 is examined as DW-1. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW-2. The husband of defendant No.3 is examined as DW-3. The defendant No.4 is examined as DW-4 and one witness is examined as DW-5 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.D-1 to D-12. 8. The trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, has dismissed the suit on the reason that the defendant No.1 has purchased property and later on, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 very same property was sold out to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 to defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 to defendant No.4 and thus, in this way, valid sale transactions between defendants No.1 to 4. The defendant No.4 is now owner and in possession over the properties. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property. Further, assigned the reasons that from the evidence of PW-2, as it is admitted by PW-2 that on 25.04.2001, there was no sale deed registered in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, on all these reasons, dismissed the suit. 9. Being aggrieved by it, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal by raising various grounds. The plaintiff has raised ground that the plaintiff has purchased property from defendant No.1 on 25.04.2001 through registered sale deed. Thus, has become owner of the property but this is not considered by the trial Court properly. The trial Court has not discussed the transaction in detail between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Further, the defendant - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 No.1 has sold property subsequent to the sale affected in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant No.1 has fraudulently sold the very same property to two different persons who are plaintiff and defendant No.2. But the sale deed of the plaintiff is earlier to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, plaintiff is owner of the property. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and declare that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule properties. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the defendant No.1 has sold out the property to defendant No.2 which he has purchased the property as per Ex.P-2. Therefore, in the sale deed i.e., Ex.D-3 on which the plaintiff claiming that there is no mentioning of the plot numbers and also the boundaries are different. Therefore, submitted that the plaintiff is not owner of the suit schedule property and this is correctly considered by the trial Court and thus, dismissed the suit. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 11. Having heard arguments from both sides and upon perusal of the evidence on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, plaintiff prove that he has purchased suit schedule properties by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001 by the defendant No.1? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.4 proves that she has validly purchased the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed dated 02.04.2013 for valuable consideration, thus establishing that she is owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties? iii. Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 12. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to declare that he is absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property in view of registered sale deed - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 dated 27.04.2001. The suit schedule property is as follows: “Towards East: Open site of Bhimashi Honakuppe. Towards West: Canal Road. Towards South: Open space of Ravikumar Sambaji Gidda. Towards North: Open site of plaintiff bearing different survey number.” 13. The plaintiff is claiming the right of declaration over the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed/Ex.P-3 dated 25.04.2001, which is stated to have been purchased by defendant No.1, so it is the claim of the plaintiff that he had purchased the above said schedule ‘A' property from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed. 14. Originally, the land is agricultural land bearing R.S.No.638/3 of Raibag town, measuring 01 acre 32 guntas. The owners of the land had converted the said agricultural land into non-agricultural land for residential purpose from competent authorities and accordingly layout - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 was formed. In the layout, one of the sites bearing R.S.No.52, which is the present schedule ‘A’ property measuring 55 x 20 feet, bearing TMC No.2086 of Raibag Town Municipal Council. The plaintiff is claiming ownership over the suit schedule property as per Ex.P-3 registered sale deed dated 27.01.2001. Upon perusing Ex.P-3 registered sale deed, in which, the vendor is defendant No.1 herein, it is noted that there is no mention of plot No.52. Also the boundaries of the plot purchased by virtue of sale deed Ex.P-4 measuring East-West 55 feet and South-North 20 feet, having boundaries as follows: “Towards East: Open space of Bhimashi Honakuppe. Towards West: Canal Road. Towards South: 20 feet width Road. Towards North: Open space of Trimbaka Jujappa Donavade.” 15. This is the property purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001 having registered on 27.04.2001. In the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 aforementioned sale deed/Ex.P-4, the plot number is not mentioned as 52. It is only stated as Pattana Panchayath No.2086, which got converted the land on 14.05.1991. The property under Ex.P-4 sale deed can be identified by its boundaries. If the said plot is available on the access part, the plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property is plot No.52 and that he has purchased it by virtue of sale deed/Ex.P-4. But the said plot No.52 is not found in Ex.P- 4/sale deed. 16. It is the case of defendant No.1 that he has purchased plot No.52 in the same survey of land bearing R.S.No.638/3 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.11.1996 and it is mentioned in Ex.P-2/sale deed plot No.52. The boundaries of this plot No.52 are as follows: “Towards East: open space belonging to Nagesh, Siddaling, Laxman, Shivaray and Yallappa sons of Mayappa Gadde (vendors of defendant No.1). Towards West: Canal road. Towards North: Open space belongs to Yallappa Siddappa Gadde. Towards South: Open space of plot No.51.” - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 17. Upon analyzing the documentary evidence Exs.P-2, P-3 and P-4, it is evident that the boundaries are different. Moreover, in the plaintiff’s sale deed, which claims to be purchased from defendant No.1, there is no mention of plot No.52. Whereas in Ex.P-2, the purchaser is defendant No.1 in which it is mentioned as plot No.52. 18. Then, defendant No.1 has sold this plot No.52 schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30.05.2012 as per Ex.P-5. In Ex.P-5/sale deed, the purchaser is defendant No.2 and vendor is defendant No.1. The boundaries in Ex.P-5/sale deed are described as having Pattana Panchayath No.2086, measuring East-West 55 feet South-North 20 feet having boundaries as follows: “Towards East: Road. Towards West: Canal. Towards North: Open space belongs to Maananda Srimanth Donavade. Towards South: Road.” - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 19. It is submitted that between the boundaries in Ex.P-2 and in Ex.P-5, plot No.51 towards the South in Ex.P-2 sale deed has been converted into road in the layout. After purchasing the property, defendant No.2 sold it to the defendant No.3 through a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2012 as per Ex.P-6. Later, defendant No.3 sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.4 through a registered sale deed on 02.08.2018 as per Ex.P-7. Therefore, from Ex.P-2, which was purchased by defendant No.1 and conveyed to defendant No.2 as per Ex.P-5/sale deed and subsequently to defendant Nos.3 and 4 as per Exs.P-6 and P-7 respectively, it is evident that the same property is converted to plot No.52. But in Ex.P-3, the sale deed purchased by the plaintiff does not mention of plot No.52. 20. Therefore, it is proved that the plaintiff may be owner of the property mentioned in Ex.P-3/sale deed if it is identified according to its boundaries, but not plot No.52. The suit schedule properties plot No.52 and the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 same is conveyed from defendants No.1 to 4 as above discussed. Further, the documentary evidence provided by the plaintiff including tax paid receipts, property extracts and income certificates from Exs.P-8 to P-14, do not depict the plot No.52. What emerges from the records that defendant No.1 might have been the owner of two properties. One is the property sold to the plaintiff, which is a different property, while plot No.52 was sold to defendant No.2. Therefore, upon considering all the evidence on record and all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that defendant No.4 is owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased through registered sale deed as per Ex.P-4/sale deed as above stated. 21. At the same time, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has become owner of plot No.52, the suit schedule property. The boundaries shown in the suit schedule matches to Ex.P-2/sale deed, which was purchased by defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff may - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2148 RFA No. 100535 of 2018 be owner of the property by virtue of Ex.P-2/sale deed, but this is a different property from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed. Further, PW-2 another witness, admitted in evidence that on 25.04.2001 there was no sale transaction in respect of plot No.52. Therefore, upon re-appreciating evidence on record, the findings given by the Trial Court is found to be correct and legal and there is no perversity found in appreciating evidence record. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 and 3 in the Negative and point No.2 in the Affirmative. Therefore, the appeal found to be devoid of merits thus, is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM: Para 1 to 10 SRA: Para 11 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15