- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2008 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI LAKSHME GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS A) MANJEGOWDA B L S/O LATE LAKSHME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A BILASINDA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI V N SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NINGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SRI NAGARAJA S/O LATE SHIVANAJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SRI SWAMY S/O LATE SHIVANANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BILASINDA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MURALIDHAR S FOR R1 TO R3, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2007 PASSED IN RA.NO.9/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) CHANNARAYAPATNA, REJECTING THE APPEAL AND CONFRIMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.356/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) CHANNARAYAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned Senior counsel Sri Uday Holla appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal is against the concurrent findings in a suit for declaration of title, injunction and rectification of the sale deed dated 26.05.1965. 3. The plaintiff who claimed to be the purchaser under the sale deed dated 26.05.1965 filed a suit on the premise that he purchased the property bearing Sy.No.194/2 measuring 10 guntas in Belasinda village, Taluk: Channarayapatna from Huchegowda and his son. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 4. The plaintiff claimed that in the said sale deed dated 26.05.1965, property is wrongly described as Sy.No.94/2 instead of Sy.No.194/2. Plaintiff further claimed that one of the vendors namely Huchegowda died. After his demise, plaintiff came to know about the error in the sale deed and he requested Shivananjegowda (deceased Huchegowda's son) who is one of the vendors to execute the rectification deed. It is claimed that though there was assurance to rectify the sale deed, same was not done and after the demise of both vendors, the suit is filed for the aforementioned relief against the legal representatives of the vendors as they refused to execute the rectification deed. 5. The defendants took a contention that the sale deed is not executed and the plaintiff is not the owner of Sy.No.194/2 and as such, not entitled for the relief of declaration of title. 6. The Trial Court framed ten issues. Issue No.1 is relating to the title of the plaintiff over the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 26.05.1965. Issue No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 is relating to possession and Issue No.3 is on the question whether the plaintiff proves wrong description of the Survey number in the sale deed dated 26.05.1965 and issue No.4 is relating to interference and issue No.5 is whether defendants establish that the sale deed dated 26.05.1965 is obtained by practicing fraud. 7. It is noticed that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendants have not established that the sale deed is outcome of fraud. 8. The plaintiff has produced the sale deed. The witness to the sale deed is also examined. However, the Trial Court has not recorded any specific finding as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property or not. On the other hand, the Trial Court has discussed much about the conduct of the plaintiff in not requesting the vendors to execute the rectification deed and concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 9. First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by framing only one point for consideration relating to limitation. 10. On perusal of the judgment of First Appellate Court, it is noticed that First Appellate Court has held that the suit is not in time. 11. Learned Senior counsel Sri Uday Holla, appearing for the appellant would submit that the suit is in time. The execution of the sale deed is established. The plea of fraud raised by the defendants is not established. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff's vendors were not the owners of Sy.No.194/2. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff’s vendors were the owners of Sy.No.94/2. Thus, the Courts could not have held that the suit is time barred. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 13. The defendants have not taken the stand that vendors were not the owners of Sy.No.194/2. It is not their - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 case that the vendors owned Sy.No.94/2, and sold the said property. The defendants have denied the execution of the sale deed itself. The execution of the sale deed is established. Since the vendors could not have executed the sale deed in respect of Sy.No.94/2 and as they owned Sy.No.194/2, the sale deed is to be construed as sale deed pertaining to Sy.No.194/2. 14. This Court has looked into the boundaries furnished in the plaint and compared the same with the boundaries shown in the sale deed dated 26.05.1965 marked at Ex.P1. The boundaries of Sy.No.194/2 found in Ex.P1 sale deed is as under: East : Property of Marigowda West: Property of Ooru Mundala Lajmegowda North: Property Kalavadi jodi South: Property of Tende Kalegowda 15. The said boundaries tally with the boundaries shown in the plaint. Thus, it is evident that the property purchased is Sy.No.194/2 and not Sy.No.94 as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 defendants have not disputed the boundaries of Sy.No.194/2 shown in the plaint. 16. As far as the limitation is concerned, the plaintiff has stated that he has requested the vendors to execute the rectification deed after coming to know about the error in the sale deed pointed out by one of the revenue officials. In a suit of this nature, limitation does not start immediately after noticing the mistake. The limitation starts only when the defendants start asserting the title of the plaintiff over the property on the basis of erroneous recitals in the sale deed. This aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. 17. Moreover both Courts having recorded the finding that the sale deed is not the outcome of fraud, could not have held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of rectification of the sale deed. 18. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that the substantial question of law has to be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents as the suit is in time. 19. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2007 in R.A.No.9/2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Channarayapatna are set aside. (iii) Judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006 in O.S.No.356/1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Channarayapatna are set aside. (iv) Consequently suit in O.S.No.356/1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Channarayapatna is decreed. The plaintiff is declared as the owner of the suit property. (v) The defendants are directed to execute rectification deed rectifying the property bearing Sy.No.94/2 as Sy.No.194/2 in the sale deed dated 26.05.1965 within 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. (vi) In case, the defendants do not execute the rectification deed within 60 days from the date of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27165 RSA No. 707 of 2008 receipt of copy of this order, the plaintiff/appellant is at liberty to execute the decree for rectification of registered sale deed dated 26.05.1965 pertaining to the suit property through the Court Commissioner. (vii) Injunction is granted against the defendants restraining them from interfering the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51