- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2256 OF 2006 (SP) C/W. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2257 OF 2006 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2258 OF 2006 IN RSA.NO.2256/2006: BETWEEN: 1. SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A. S. YENKAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1B. S. NAGAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1C. S. THIMMAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1D. S. CHIDANANDA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1D((i) NELAMMA W/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, R Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 1D(ii) NAGARAJA S/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 1D(iii) BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 1D(iv) SUKANTHAMMA D/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.1D(i) to (iv) ARE R/O: DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSAPETE TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT – 583 223. 1E. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1F. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1G. SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS [BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING A1(D)(i) AND A1(D)(iv)] - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 AND: 1. KAMAREDDY THIMMAPPA S/O. LATE SHIVARAMA REDDY, MAJOR, R/AT: DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. SHINGANALU HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 2A. SMT. SINGANALU PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE SINGANALU HANUMANTHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. RESPONDENTS NO.2(B) TO 2(I) WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD 2B. SMT. SINGANALU MANJAMMA, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2C. SINGANALU THIMMAREDDY, S/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2D. SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O: METRI, HOSPET TALUK. 2E. SINGANALU NAGARAJ, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 2F. SINGANALU GANGADHAR, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2G. SMT. DHAKSHYINAMMA, W/O. JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. TUMTI, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2H. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA, W/O. GIREDDY CHANNABASAPPA, MAJOR, YELLAPUR POST, LAKSHMIPURA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2I. SMT. NELAMMA W/O. MARKANDEYA, MAJOR, R/O: KAKABAL, HOSPET TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS NO.2(C) TO 2(I) ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2 (B). 3. SHINGANALU THIMMAPPA S/O. RACHOTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. 4. SHINGANALU PAMPANNA, S/O. RACHOTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. 5. SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, S/O. YERRIBASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 5A. THIMMAREDDY S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 5B. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 5C. YERRISWAMY S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 6. SHINGANALU CHANDRAPPA S/O. YERRIBASAPPA, MAJOR, RESPONDENTS 3, 4, 5(A) TO 5(C) AND 6 ARE AGRICULTURIST R/AT DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(B) TO R2(I) AND R3 TO R6 AND R5(A) TO R5(C); R2A IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULA SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) IN R.A.NO.80/05 DATED 29.03.2006 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC, HOSPET IN O.S.NO.26/03 DATED 08.07.2005 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND ALLOW THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND ETC., IN RSA.NO.2257/2006: BETWEEN: 1. SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A. S. YENKAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 1B. S. NAGAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1C. S. THIMMAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1D. S. CHIDANANDA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1D((i) NELAMMA W/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 1D(ii) NAGARAJA S/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 1D(iii) BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 1D(iv) SUKANTHAMMA D/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.1D(i) to (iv) ARE R/O: DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSAPETE TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT – 583 223. 1E. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 1F. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1G. SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS [BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING A1(D)(i) AND A1(D)(iv)] AND: 1. SHINGANALU HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA, MAJOR, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1A. SMT. SINGANALU PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE SINGANALU HANUMANTHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. RESPONDENTS NO.1(B) TO 1(I) WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD 1B. SMT. SINGANALU MANJAMMA, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1C. SINGANALU THIMMAREDDY, S/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1D. SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 R/O. METRI, HOSPET TALUK. 1E. SINGANALU NAGARAJ, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1F. SINGANALU GANGADHAR, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1G. SMT. DHAKSHYINAMMA, W/O. JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. TUMTI, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1H. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA, W/O. GIREDDY CHANNABASAPPA, MAJOR, YELLAPUR POST, LAKSHMIPURA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1I. SMT. NELAMMA W/O. MARKANDEYA, MAJOR, R/O: KAKABAL, HOSPET TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS NO.1(B) TO 1(I) ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1(A). 2. SHINGANALU THIMMAPPA S/O. RACHOTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. 3. SHINGANALU PAMPANNA, S/O. RACHOTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 4. SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, S/O. YERRIBASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 4A. THIMMAREDDY S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 4B. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 4C. YERRISWAMY S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5. SHINGANALU CHANDRAPPA S/O. YERRIBASAPPA, MAJOR, RESPONDENTS 2, 3, 4(A) TO 4(C) AND 5 ARE AGRICULTURIST R/AT DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B) TO R1(I) AND R2 TO R5 AND R4(A) TO R4(C); R1A IS SERVED) THIS REGULA SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) IN R.A.NO.69/05 DATED 29.03.2006 AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC, HOSPET IN O.S.NO.22/03 DATED 14.06.2005 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO GRANTING THE RELIEFS OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ALLOW THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC., IN RSA.NO.2258/2006: BETWEEN: 1. SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 1A. S. YENKAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1B. S. NAGAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1C. S. THIMMAPPA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1D. S. CHIDANANDA S/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1D((i) NELAMMA W/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 1D(ii) NAGARAJA S/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 1D(iii) BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 1D(iv) SUKANTHAMMA D/O. LATE S. CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.1D(i) to 1D(iv) ARE R/O: DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSAPETE TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT – 583 223. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 1E. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1F. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1G. SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O. LATE SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O: DHARMASAGAR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS [BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING A1(D)(i) AND A1(D)(iv)] AND: 1. SHINGANALU HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA, MAJOR, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1A. SMT. SINGANALU PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE SINGANALU HANUMANTHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. RESPONDENTS NO.1(B) TO 1(I) WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD 1B. SMT. SINGANALU MANJAMMA, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1C. SINGANALU THIMMAREDDY, S/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1D. SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. METRI, HOSPET TALUK. 1E. SINGANALU NAGARAJ, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1F. SINGANALU GANGADHAR, W/O. LATE SINGANALU BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1G. SMT. DHAKSHYINAMMA, W/O. JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. TUMTI, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1H. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA, W/O. GIREDDY CHANNABASAPPA, MAJOR, YELLAPUR POST, LAKSHMIPURA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1I. SMT. NELAMMA W/O. MARKANDEYA, MAJOR, R/O: KAKABAL, HOSPET TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS NO.1(B) TO 1(I) ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1(A). - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 2. SHINGANALU THIMMAPPA S/O. RACHOTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. 3. SHINGANALU PAMPANNA S/O. RACHOTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. 4. SHINGANALU JAMBANNA S/O. YERRIBASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 4A. THIMMAREDDY S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 4B. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 4C. YERRISWAMY S/O. LATE SHINGANALU JAMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5. SHINGANALU CHANDRAPPA S/O. YERRIBASAPPA, MAJOR, RESPONDENTS 2, 3, 4(A) TO 4(C) AND 5 ARE AGRICULTURIST R/AT DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B) TO R1(I) AND R2 TO R5 AND R4(A) TO R4(C); R1A IS SERVED) THIS REGULA SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) IN R.A.NO.69/05 DATED 29.03.2006 AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC, HOSPET IN O.S.NO.22/03 DATED 14.06.2005 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO GRANTING THE RELIEFS OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ALLOW THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC., - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 29.03.2006 passed in RA Nos.69/2005, 73/2005 and 80/2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Hospete (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. Originally suit in OS No.22/2003 is filed by S. Hanamanthappa, S. Bhimappa, S. Pampanna, S. Jambanna, S. Chandrappa (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) against one Shinganalu Doddabasappa (hereinafter referred to as defendant) seeking judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing them from land bearing Sy.No.133B measuring 1-48 acres and land Sy.No.135B measuring 2-37 acres situated at Dharmasagar village, (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule properties), contending inter alia that; - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 (a) That the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaintschedule properties same being their ancestral properties. (b) That one Pompanna, the grand father of the plaintiffs was the owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till his demise. Thereafter, his sons namely Thimappa, Rachotappa, Yeribasappa were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same till their demise which is now in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs being their legal heirs. (c) That the father and the grand father of the plaintiffs during their lifetime had mortgaged the suit properties to Nelludi Basappa in the year 1939 indicating the suit properties being their ancestral properties. That the plaintiffs after the demise of their grand father and father had given an application to the concerned Tahasildar, Hosapete seeking mutation of their names and the matter was referred to the Sheristedar for which the defendant had filed objection. The Sheristedar on consideration of the matter passed the order mutating the names of the plaintiffs. Against which, defendant preferred ROR Appeal bearing No.16/2002-03 claiming his rights over the suit properties on the basis of an unregistered agreement of sale. The Assistant - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 Commissioner, Hosapete directed the parties to approach the Civil Court as the matter of involved title dispute. (d) That name of Pompanna and Thimappa are reflected in column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the Records of Rights since from the year 1967-68 till filing of the application by the plaintiff seeking mutation of the names. The said Pompanna is the grand father of the plaintiffs and Thimappa is the eldest member of the joint family. (e) That in view of the direction given by the Assistant Commissioner, Hosapete and due to the interference by the defendant, plaintiffs filed the present suit. 3. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending inter alia that : (a) One Smt. Basamma the second wife of one B Annappa was the owner of item No.1 of the suit properties bearing Sy.No.133B she having succeeded to the same after death of her husband. Half of item No.2 of the suit properties bearing Sy.No.135B measuring 1- 18½ acres had been acquired by said Basamma in terms of a registered document dated 06.03.1930 executed by her husband Annappa towards her maintenance and she succeeded to other half portion - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 of the said land after his demise. As such, Basamma became the absolute owner of the entire suit schedule properties. (b) The said Basamma sold suit item Nos.1 and 2 properties in favour of one B. N. Basavareddy in terms of registered deed of sale dated 17.01.1967. (c) Defendant purchased the suit properties from said B. N. Basavareddy through an agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972 for Rs.3,000/-. Ever since, the date of the agreement of sale defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. (d) Neither the plaintiffs nor their forefathers are concerned with the suit properties. Thimmappa whose name is entered in the ROR from the year 1967-68 is not related to the plaintiffs but he is related to Annappa being his cousin brother i.e. uncle’s son. The said Thimmappa had died issueless as such Annappa succeeded to land bearing Sy.No.135B measuring 2- 37 acres. The plaintiffs taking undue advantage of similarity of name in ROR are claiming their right over the suit properties. (e) That the he has filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972 in which - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 the plaintiffs have been arrayed as defendants. Hence, sought for dismissal of suit. 4. Defendant filed a separate suit in O.S.No.26/2003 against one Kamareddy Timmappa as defendant No.1 and, plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2003 as defendants No.2 to 6 contending inter alia that: a) The grandfather of the defendant No.1 by name D.N. Basava Reddy was the owner in possession of the suit properties he having purchased the same from one Baragur Basamma in terms of deed of sale dated 17.01.1967. That the said D.N. Basava Reddy sold the suit properties to the plaintiff in terms of an agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.3,000. That the said D.N. Basava Reddy had delivered physical possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff by receiving the entire sale consideration. Ever since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. That he had requested the said D.N. Basava Reddy and after his death to his son Shivarama Reddy to execute a registered deed of sale pursuant to the said agreement of sale. However, both of them had protracted the matter on the one pretext - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 or the other and both of them died without executing the registered deed of sale. b) That subsequent to the demise, plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 who is the grandson of D.N. Basava Reddy and son of said Shivarama Reddy to execute a registered deed of sale. Even defendant No.1 went on postponing the same. Since the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in getting the deed of sale registered and since there was failure in the part of the D.N. Basava Reddy and his son Shivarama Reddy and thereafter defendant No.1 in executing the deed of sale, the plaintiff had caused issue of legal notice calling upon defendant No.1 to execute a registered deed of sale, to which defendant No.1 had caused untenable reply denying the agreement. c) That the defendants No.2 to 6 without having any right, title and interest over the suit properties were claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit properties and attempted to interfere with his possession based on certain illegal entries made in the records of rights. d) That an application to the Tahasildar was made on 17.05.2001 for mutation of his name in the records of right which was objected to by defendants No.2 to 6. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 The Tahasildar, Hospet passed an order rejecting the request of the plaintiff to effect the mutation entries. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the said order before the Assistant Commissioner, Hospet who while setting aside the order of the Tahasildar, Hospet, directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to have their rights adjudicated in accordance with law. Hence, the suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. 5. Defendants No.1 in his written statement admitted his relationship with aforesaid D.N. Basava Reddy, however denied that he is the sole legal heir. He contented that he had 4 sisters. He pleaded ignorance about his grandfather executing agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972 in favour of the plaintiff. He has denied plaintiff requesting and demanding execution and registration of deed of sale by D.N. Basava Reddy or his son Shivarama Reddy or by the defendant No.1 himself. He has also denied passing of the consideration to his grandfather. He has pleaded that the suit properties are in possession of defendants No.2 to - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 6 and that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No.6 filed separate written statement, which is adopted by Defendants 2 to 5, denying the claim of the plaintiff that the suit properties belong to D.N. Basava Reddy and that the said D.N. Basava Reddy had sold the same in favour of the plaintiff by entering into an agreement of sale by receiving the sale consideration. It is also denied that the plaintiff was handed over with possession of the suit properties. It is contended that the defendants No.2 to 5 are in possession of the suit properties as the same are ancestral properties. It is further contended that suit schedule properties originally belong to one Pompanna who was their grandfather. That the said Pompanna during his lifetime was in possession of the suit properties as absolute owner thereof. That after his demise suit properties devolved upon his sons and thereafter upon the defendants No.2 to 6. It is contended that the said Pompanna and his sons - the fathers of defendants No.2 to - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 6 had mortgaged the suit properties in favour of one Nelludi Basappa in the year 1939 which confirms the suit properties being ancestral properties of defendants No.2 to 6. Proceedings before the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner resulting in direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court for determination of the right is admitted. 7. It is further contended that from the year 1967- 68 till filing of the suit, records of rights stand in the name of their grandfather Pompanna and Thimmappa. That since vendor of the plaintiff namely D.N. Basava Reddy did not have right, title and interest over the suit properties, he could not have executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, as such the said document is void ab initio. It is also contended that the said agreement is false, concocted. Hence, sought for dismissal of suit. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court in O.S.No.22/2003 framed the following issues: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 1. vÁªÀÅ zÁªÁ ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ®PÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛÃªÉA§Ä£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 2. vÁªÀÅ zÁªÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ zÁªÁ ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÞ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛÃªÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 3. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÀ¸ÀÛPÉëÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉÃ±À ªÁ rQæ? 9. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court in O.S.No.26/2003 framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that one D. N. Basava Reddy was the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that D.N. Basava Reddy agreed to sale the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff on 17.07.1972 for the valuable consideration of Rs.3,000/-? 3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he has paid entire sale consideration of rs.3,000/- to the grand father of Defendant No.1? 4. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he has put in possession of the suit property on 18.07.1972 itself? 5. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, D. N. Basava Reddy has executed the agreement of sale on 18.07.1972? 6. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he requested the Defendant No.1 and Shivarama Reddy to execute the register the sale-deed? This issue required to be modified as follows. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 Whether the Plaintiff proves that he was ready and wiling to perform his part of contract? 7. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the Defendants have failed to perform their part of contract? 8. Whether the Defendant proves that, the suit is barred by law of limitation? 9. Whether the Defendant Nos.2 to 6 prove that, suit property is their ancestral properties? 10. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the decree prayed for? 11. What decree or order?” 10. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2003 examined three witnesses and exhibited 10 documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and the defendant examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and exhibited 14 documents marked as Exs.D.1 to D.14. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, answered issue No.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 11. Five witnesses have been examined in O.S.No.26/2003 as PW.1 to PW.5 and exhibited 14 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. Two witnesses have been examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and exhibited 3 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. On appreciation of - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative, issue No.8 and 10 partly in affirmative and issue No.5, 6, 7 and 9 in the negative and consequently partly decreed the said suit restraining plaintiffs (defendants No.2 to 6) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.26/2003) over the suit properties by way of permanent injunction. The suit with regard to specific performance was dismissed. 12. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree to the extent of dismissal of suit in O.S.NO.26/2003 for specific performance, defendant (plaintiff in the said suit) preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.80/2005 and being aggrieved by the grant of permanent injunction plaintiffs (defendants No.2 to 5) preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.69/2005 before the First Appellate Court. As against the dismissal of their suit in O.S.No.22/2003 plaintiffs preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.73/2005. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 13. The First Appellate Court took up the aforesaid three appeals in R.A.No.69/2005, R.A.No.73/2005 and R.A.No.80/2005 for common disposal and framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the trial court is error in holding that, Defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.26/03) is in possession of the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the Defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.26/3) is entitled for the relief of specific performance? 3. Whether the interference required in the impugned Judgement and Decree of the trial Court? 4. Whether the plaintiff (Appellants) in O.S.No.22/03 entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 5. What Decree or order?” 14. On re-appreciation of the matter, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 and 4 in the affirmative and point No.3 partly in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and consequently allowed the appeal in R.A.No.69/2005 and R.A.No.73/2005 and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22/2003 and O.S.No.26/2003 dated 14.06.2005 and 08.07.2005 respectively by the Trial Court and decreed the suit in O.S.No.22/2003 restraining the defendant permanently by - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 way of permanent injunction from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit properties. Regular appeal filed by the defendant in R.A.No.80/2005 is dismissed with costs. 15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appeals as noted above have been filed by the defendant. 16. By order dated 23.07.2013, this Court admitted the appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law: “In RSA NO.2256/2006: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below were justified in denying the relief of specific performance having held that Ex.P.1 has been proved? In RSA NO.2257/2006: Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case the appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.22/2003 granting permanent injunction in favour of the respondent 1 to 5 having held that Ex.P.1 has been proved? In RSA NO.2258/2006: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 O.S.No.26/2003 granting permanent injunction having held that Ex.P.1 has been proved?” 17. Since these appeals give raise to common questions of facts and law between the same parties, these matters are connected and taken up for analogous hearing and disposal. 18. Smt. V.Vidya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant in these appeals taking this Court through the records submits; (a) That the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are contrary to the very own reasoning and conclusion arrived at on the question of execution of Ex.P1 the agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972. That, when the execution of the said agreement and the payment of entire sale consideration is proved, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court had no option but to grant the relief of specific performance. (b) That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought not to have gone into the questions with regard to the right, title and interest of the vendors of the defendants namely Smt. Baraguru Basamma and D.N. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 Basavareddy. The very fact that son of D.N. Basavareddy, who is arrayed as defendant No.1 in O.S. No.26/2003 pleaded his ignorance about the execution of the agreement, the same ought to have construed in favour of the defendant. (c) That the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court though have held agreement at Ex.P1 as deed of sale and not an agreement of sale, ought to have recognized the possession delivered to the defendant under the said agreement. Thus, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in refusing the grant relief of specific performance. (d) That though the Trial Court had granted relief of permanent injunction, the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court granting the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, she submits the substantial questions of law framed by this Court be answered in favour of the defendant and allow the appeals. 19. Per contra, Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs justifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court submits; - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 (a) That the defendants who claim to have entered into agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972, has asserted his alleged rights for the first time in the suit in OS No.22/2003 that is after expiry of over three decades. That perusal of the said document at Ex.P1 indicate the same to be an outright sale requiring nothing further to be done. The filing of the suit for specific performance was only to over come the legal effect of not registering the document as contemplated under the provisions of Registration Act. (b) That the defendant has not produced any evidence of he being in possession except relying upon certain brought up documents allegedly executed by the plaintiffs which has no legal sanctity. That the document at Ex.P1 did not create any right, title and interest in favour of the defendant and the same is therefore, rightly declined and rejected by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. (c) Thus, he submits that no substantial question of law would arise in the matters, hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeals. 20. Heard and perused the records. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 21. Defendant is claiming his right, title and interest over the suit properties in terms of agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972 produced and marked as Ex.P.1 which was purportedly executed by one D.N. Basava Reddy in his favour. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said D N Basava Reddy in turn had purchased the suit properties from one Smt.Baragur Basamma in terms of a deed of sale dated 17.01.1967. Defendant has also claimed that the possession of the suit properties was delivered to him by the said D.N. Basava Reddy in terms of the said agreement of sale dated 18.07.1972. 22. Necessary at this juncture to refer to the contents of said document at Ex.P.1 which read as under: “1972 £ÉÃ dÄ¯ÉÊ 18£ÉÃ (ºÀ¢£ÉAl£É ¥Àæ.¢) ºÉÆ¸À¥Áån vÁ.PÀA¦è UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÁUÀgÀ ¤Ã®UÀ®Äè «ÃgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ r.J£ï. §¸ÀªÀgÉrØ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ §j¬Ä¹ PÉÆlÖ ¹ÜgÁ¹Ü PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæAiÉÄÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ºÉÆ¸À¥Áån vÁ PÀ¸À¨Á zsÀªÀÄð¸ÁUÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ agÁ¹Û¬ÄAzÀ fÃªÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ZÀ£Àß§¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¹AUÀ£Á¼ÀÄ zÉÆqÀØ §¸À¥Àà¤UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄ¤ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ RaðUÁV F ¢ªÀ¸À ¤«ÄäAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀæAiÀÄ zsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛ £ÀUÀzÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀ¢üÃ£À ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ £À£Àß ºÀPÀÄÌD¢üÃ£À C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ µÉqÀÆå¯Á¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä RArvÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 PÉÆlÄÖ F ¢£ÀªÉÃ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃ¤. EA¢¤AzÀ ¸À¢æ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁ£À «PÀæAiÀiÁ¢ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀÛ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ½AzÀ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸À®Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÄä ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzsÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀßUÀÆ £Àß£À ªÁgÀìzÁgÀgÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀ «zsÀªÁzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ C¢üPÁgÀ ¸À¢æ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É¬ÄgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. ¸À¢æ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤ªÀÄä C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁjAzÁ¯ÁzÀgÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÄ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ §AzÀ°è CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß Rað¤AzÀ ¸À¢æ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀµÀÌj¹ ¤ªÀÄä ºÀPÀÄÌ ¹ÜgÀ ¥Àr¹ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. µÉqÀÆå® §¼Áîj f¯Áè ºÉÆ¸À¥Áån vÁ: zsÀªÀÄð¸ÁUÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀA.RÄ¶Ì ¸À.£ÀA.133 ¢.AiÀÄ 1-48 ¸À.£ÀA.135 ¢ AiÀÄ 2.37 µÀgÁ £ÀA§gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ½UÉ ZÀPÀÌ§A¢ ¥ÀÆ. ¹AUÀ¨Á¼ÀÄ gÁZÉÆÃl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ. zÀ. ¸ÉÆªÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ G. PÀªÀÄ¯Á¥ÀÄgÀzÀ «gÀÄ¥ÁµÀÌ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ 13 JPÀgÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢, ¥ÀÆ. ¹AUÀ£Á¼ÀÄ µÀtÄäR¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥À. wªÀÄä¥Àà£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ G.zÀ. ¹AUÀ£Á¼ÀÄ gÁZÉÆÃl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ.” 23. The Trial Court having adverted to the contents of the said document, has rightly come to the conclusion that the aforesaid document at Ex.P.1 is an absolute deed of sale and not an agreement for sale as sought to be contended by the defendant. This aspect of the matter has been on re-appreciation confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also fairly submits that the terms of the said document indicate - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 same being an absolute deed of sale, however she hasten to add that considering the background of the persons who have entered into such a document and their literacy level, the said document has to be read as an agreement of sale and not as a deed of sale. 25. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant cannot be countenanced for the reason that “Sale” and an “agreement for sale” per se have different legal effect and implication. “Sale” and “agreement for sale” are defined under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. The said provision reads as under: “54. "Sale" defined.-"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. "In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale. A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” 26. The contents of the aforesaid document at Ex.P1 do not even remotely suggest that it is an agreement for sale. As rightly held by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the said document is an outright sale. It is not an executory document. In other words, it is not an agreement indicating sale of property to take place at any time in future on such terms and conditions, as may be agreed upon by the parties. Since the contents of the aforesaid document extracted as above indicate creation of right, title and interest in respect of immovable property instantaneously on payment of the entire sale consideration, as rightly held by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, nothing further is required to be performed or directed to be performed. Since the value of the property - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 subject matter of the agreement which is mentioned in the said document as Rs.3,000/-, which is in excess of Rs.100/- the same is required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act, 1908’). 27. Though, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court taking note of the nature of the document have held that, a suit for specific performance seeking performance of the terms of the said document was not maintainable, as there was nothing left to be performed in the said document, there is yet another aspect of the matter which disentitles the defendants from seeking specific performance of the said document. Since, it is concurrently held, rightly so, that the document at Ex.P1 is indeed an absolute sale, under the circumstances, the defendant had two remedies. Firstly, presenting the document under Section 23 of the Act, 1908 for compulsory registration and secondly in the event of its refusal, he could avail the - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 remedy of filing a suit for specific performance as contemplated under Section 77 of the Act, 1908. 28. It is also necessary to note that the Act, 1908 which is self contained Code providing for manner of dealing with the presentation and registration of the documents which are required to be registered compulsorily. Provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 1908 reads as under: “23. Time for presenting documents.-Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution: Provided that a copy a of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final. 29. 29. Section 32 of the Act, 1908 provides for persons who are entitled to present the document for presentation, which reads as under: 32. Persons to present documents for registration.- Except in the cases mentioned in [sections 31, 88 and 89] [Substituted by Act 39 of 1948, Section 3, for "section 31 and section 89" (w.e.f. 3.9.1948).], every document to be registered under this Act, whether such - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office, (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representative or assign of such person, or (c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned. 30. Section 34 of the Act, 1908 provides for enquiry by the Registering Officer before registration, which reads as under: 34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.— (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered. (2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 (3) The registering officer shall thereupon— (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. (4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub-section (1) may be lodged with a SubRegistrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders. 31. Section 35 of the Act, 1908 provides for procedure on admission and denial of execution accordingly, which reads as under: 35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.— (1) (a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the person they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 (b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or (c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive. (2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in his office. (3) (a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or (b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or (c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead: Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII: [Provided further that the 2 [State Government] may, by notification in the 3 [Official Gazette], declare that any Sub-Registrar named in the notification shall, in respect of documents the execution of which is denied, be deemed to be a Registrar for the purposes of this sub- section and of Part XII.] - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 32. Section 36 of the Act, 1908 provides for procedure where appearance of executants or witnesses desired, which reads as under: 36. Procedure where appearance of executant or witness is desired.— If any person presenting any document for registration or claiming under any document, which is capable of being so presented, desires the appearance of any person whose presence or testimony is necessary for the registration of such document, the registering officer may, in his discretion, call upon such Officer or Court as the 2 [State Government] directs in this behalf to issue a summons requiring him to appear at the registration office, either in person or by duly authorised agent, as in the summons may be mentioned, and at a time named therein. 33. Part XII of the Act, 1908 deal with consequences of refusal to register the document. In that, Sections 71, 72, 73 and 77 of the Act, 1908 are pertinent, which are as under: 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.— (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. 72. Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub- Registrar refusing registration on ground other than denial of execution.— (1) Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may reverse or alter such order. (2) If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60; and such registration shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. 73. Application to Registrar where Sub- Registrar refuses to register on ground of denial of execution.— (1) When a Sub-Registrar has refused to register a document on the ground that any person by whom it purports to be executed, or his representative or assign, denies its execution, any person claiming under such document, or his representative, assign or agent authorised as aforesaid, may, within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal, apply to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate in order to establish his right to have the document registered. (2) Such application shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a copy of the reasons recorded under - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 section 71, and the statements in the application shall be verified by the applicant in manner required by law for the verification of plaints. 77. Suit in case of order of refusal by Registrar. - (1) Where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered, under section 72 or section 76, any person claiming under such document, or his representative, assign or agent, may, within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal, institute in the Civil Court, within the local limits of whose original jurisdiction is situate the office in which the document is sought to be registered, a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree. (2) The provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 75, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to all documents presented for registration in accordance with any such decree, and, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the document shall be receivable in evidence in such suit”. 34. Thus, from the above it is cleared that where a person executes a document, but refuses to register it, a person in whose favour the document is executed is entitled to establish his right to have the document registered by instituting the suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, for a decree directing the document to be registered. However, such suit will not lie unless the condition precedents to its institution are complied with. In other - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 words, no suit shall lie under Section 77 unless the document has been presented for registration within the time prescribed under Section 23; unless the presentation is by a person authorized to do so under Section 32; unless there has been refusal by the Sub Registrar of register; unless there has been an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72 or an application under Section 73 made within 30 days from the date of order of refusal by the Sub Registrar; unless there has been refusal by Registrar to register under Section 76 and unless the suit has been filed within 30 days from the date of the Registrar’s order of refusal1. 35. It is clear that the aforesaid document at Ex.P1, which is a sale deed, having been entered into between the said D.N. Basava Reddy and the plaintiff on 18.07.1972, and the same not having been presented for registration within the time prescribed under Section 23 of the Act, 1908 as noted above, the suit in O.S. No.26/2003 has been filed seeking specific performance only as a device to 1 Mulla The Registration Act by Sardinshaw Fardunji Mulla 13th Edition page 478) - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 indirectly achieve the object which is otherwise impermissible under law. More particularly for non compliance of the conditions required to maintain the suit under Section 77 of the Act, 1908 as noted above. The date of the aforesaid agreement for sale is 18.07.1972. The suit for specific performance in OS No.26/2003 has been filed after the plaintiffs filing their suit for injunction in O.S.No.22/2003 i.e., after lapse of over three decades. The defendant had clearly abandoned the said contract and had waived his right to sue for specific performance of the contract as provided under the provisions of the Act, 1908 noted above. 36. The substantial question of law framed in RSA No.2256/2022 is answered accordingly. 37. As regards the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, which had granted relief of permanent injunction in favour of the defendant, though it had rejected the relief for specific performance, and dismissing the suit of plaintiffs for relief - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 of injunction is concerned, it is a trite law that a person seeking relief of injunction has to prove and establish he being in lawful possession of the property. 38. The First Appellate Court on facts has found that the defendant has failed to provide acceptable material evidence in support of his contention of he being in possession of the suit property. 39. Admittedly, the revenue documents remained in the name of one Pompanna whom the plaintiffs claim to be their grandfather. Entries in the encumbrance certificate pertaining to land in Sy.No.133B produced at Ex.P7 in O.S. No. 26/2003 which is also marked as Ex.D6 in O.S. No.22/2003 reflect mortgage being created by Pompanna and others in favour of one Nelavadi Basappa. The documents at Exs.P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9 reflect the names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. These documents are pertaining to the years 1980, 1987 till filing of the suit. Clearly indicating their ownership over the same. An attempt is made by the - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 defendant to contend that the said Pompanna was the nephew/cousin brother of B Annappa, the husband of Baragur Basamma, but has failed to justify the same by any evidence. First appellate court in the circumstances has found that the Appanna did not have right, title and interest over the suit properties. As such his wife Basamma did not derive any right, title and interest therein. Consequently she could not have executed any deed of sale in favour of D N Basava Reddy. 40. Though Baragur Basamma claim to have purchased portion of the suit properties from her husband in the year 1930, and thereafter, D.N. Basava Reddy purported who have purchased the entire suit properties in the year 1967, neither the name of said Appanna, nor Baragur Basamma nor her purchaser D.N. Basava Reddy who is the vendor of defendant has been reflected in any of the revenue records. 41. There has been not even a single entry in any of the revenue records reflecting the name of the defendant - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 though he claims to have been put in possession of the suit property by D.N. Basava Reddy in terms of Ex.P1 in the year 1972. 42. The aforesaid aspects of the matter has been rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court at paragraph Nos.32 to 36 of its judgment and this Court do not see any error are irregularity committed by the First Appellate Court in this regard. 43. The other document sought to be produced and relied upon by the defendant is Ex.D5 produced in O.S.No.22/2003. Perusal of the said document indicates that same was purportedly executed by the plaintiffs voluntarily in favour of the defendant admitting his right, title and possession over the suit properties, expressing their no objection for change of name in the revenue record on the premise that for some reason though neither they nor their forefathers had any right over the suit properties, the names of the grandfathers had been included in the revenue records. - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 44. The Trial Court having adverted to the said document at Ex.D5 though found that the properties subject matter of the said document are different from the suit schedule properties, however it proceeded to grant the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the defendant by holding that there must have been an error in describing the suit properties in the said document. 45. Necessary also to note that the contents of Ex.D.5, though the same have been disputed by the plaintiffs, would amount to relinquishment of their claim, right, title and interest by the plaintiffs and vesting of same in favour of the defendant in respect of suit properties. The said document having been executed on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- having the effect of creating the right, title and interest in immovable property value in more than Rs.100/- cannot be admitted in the evidence for want of registration as required under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. 46. That apart even as rightly opined by the First Appellate Court, that if at all as contended by the - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 defendant, plaintiffs are no way connected or related either to the deceased Pompanna or Thimmappa, there was no need or necessity for him to have obtained such a document from the plaintiffs. Further, the First Appellate Court has also found, rightly so, that there has been no pleading either with regard to this document or with regard to deceased Thimmappa being the nephew/cousin brother of husband of Baragur Basamma by the defendant in his suit in O.S.No.26/2003. The First Appellate Court has also found that the defendant has not proved the relationship between Thipanna and Annappa. 47. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis the First Appellate Court has committed no error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.22/2003 and OS No.26/2003 and granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The substantial question of law framed in RSA Nos.2257/2006 and 2258/2006 are answered accordingly. 48. Consequently, the following: - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7917 RSA No. 2256 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2257 of 2006 RSA No. 2258 of 2006 ORDER i) The appeals are dismissed. ii) The common judgment and decree dated 29.03.2006 passed in R.A. Nos.69/2005, 73/2005 and 80/2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Hospete are confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

SHINGANALU DODDABASAPPA v. KAMAREDDY THIMMAPPA

Judgment text