- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: M P MAHADEVASWAMY S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO 45, VIVEKANANDA BLOCK TEACHERS LAYOUT MYSORE CITY - 570 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.M. ASHWATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT KOMALA VISHWANATHA W/O LATE VISHWANATHA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. CHETHAN VISHWANATH S/O LATE VISHWANATHA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO 1053, 80 FT ROAD, NEW KANTHARAJE URS ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSORE CITY - 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y K NARAYANA SHARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & C/R2) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 26.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.252/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.1.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.136/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CVIL JUDGE, MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This RSA is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed in R.A. No.252 of 2012 by the learned Fast Track Court- II, Mysore and the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2012 passed in O.S. No.136 of 1999 by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property, a vacant site, was allotted in favour of the plaintiff by Mysore Urban Development Authority ("MUDA") vide Allotment letter dated 14.03.1984 for a consideration of ₹37,777.40 paise. The MUDA raised the price of the said site to ₹1,33,332/- in 1988. The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with defendant No.1 on 29.06.1992 with certain conditions. On the same day, defendant No.1 obtained a General Power of Attorney from the plaintiff to get a title deed from MUDA. 5. After that, defendant No.1 did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff, as well as did not perform her part of the contract. On the other hand, she deliberately and clearly violated the terms and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 conditions of the agreement and postponed to register the sale deed from the plaintiff as per the said agreement. Thus, defendant No.1 committed a breach of contract. 6. The plaintiff has sustained a huge loss. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 27.05.1993, cancelling the agreement and the power of attorney. There is no existing contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, as the plaintiff has cancelled the General Power of Attorney and the sale agreement. 7. Defendant No.1 replied to the legal notice on untenable grounds. It is contended that the plaintiff, being the original allottee, is the actual owner of the suit schedule property and the suit site is vacant and even now, it is in the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. He has applied for MUDA claiming a bit of site measuring 10x80 sq.ft. The same was allotted by MUDA in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were mother and son, colluding with each other and got created the documents. 8. The plaintiff again got issued a legal notice on 16.07.1996 to the defendants. The defendants replied in detail on 20.07.1996. 9. The plaintiff, to protect his possession, filed a suit in O.S. No.542 of 1996 for permanent injunction against the defendants on file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore, and after contest, the said suit was dismissed. 10. The findings recorded in O.S. No.542 of 1996 is not legally sustainable. Defendant No.1 colluding with defendant No.2 got executed a registered sale deed. It is contended that defendant No.1 had no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The transaction between defendant Nos.1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 and 2, does not bind the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, on these grounds, prays to decree the suit. 11. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.542/1996 against the defendants. The said suit came to be dismissed. It is contended that the judgment passed in O.S.No.542/1996 operates as res judicata. It is contended that the plaintiff executed a sale agreement in favour of defendant No.1 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. Defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. It is also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. It is contended that the plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 also a sale agreement. The plaintiff by suppressing the said fact, filed a suit in O.S.No.542/1996. It is contended that by virtue of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act of 1882'), the defendants were entitled to retain the possession of the suit property for having paid the entire sale consideration amount. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not sought for a relief of cancellation of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 within time. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time. It is also contended that on the basis of the sale agreement, defendant No.1 paid the entire consideration amount to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short 'the MUDA'). Defendant No.1 paid the total sum of Rs.4,62,000/- to the MUDA and admitted regarding the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff to defendant No.1. The defendants have replied to the legal notice issued by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. 12. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issue: "(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 30.03.1996 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and not binding on him? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for possession of suit property from the defendants? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of suit property as on the date of the suit? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction against the defendants? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed? (vi) What order or decree? Additional Issue No.1: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 (i) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?" 13. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1, also defendant No.1 was examined as DW.2, and marked 28 documents as Exs.D1 to D28. 14. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 and additional issue No.1 in the negative and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.01.2012. 15. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit in O.S.No. 136/1999 preferred an appeal in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 R.A.No.252/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court- II at Mysore. 16. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether executing Ex.D1 and D2 the right and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property has been validly transferred in favour of the 1st defendant? (ii) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff? If not? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court calls for interference? (iv) What order? 17. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, point No.3 in the negative and point No.4 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 and decree passed in O.S.No.136/1999 vide judgement dated 26.11.2012. 18. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 19. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also the learned counsel for the defendants. 20. This Court, on 09.07.2019, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the T.P.Act being an equitable doctrine, whether the defendant/respondents can protect their possession under this provision when the first defendant, who was put in possession of the property in part performance of the contract has parted with the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the second defendant?" - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 21. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and also the learned counsel for the defendants. 22. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the MUDA had allotted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by issuing allotment letter and subsequently, the MUDA has raised the price. He submits that the plaintiff executed the sale agreement and a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. He submits that defendant No.1 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the power of attorney and sale agreement. He submits that defendant No.1 committed a breach of the contract. He submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff is the original allottee. He submits that defendant No.1 without acquiring the title over the suit property, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. He - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 submits that defendant No.2 had not acquired any right, title or interest on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The said aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgements. He also submits that defendant No.1 has manipulated the general power of attorney. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 23. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff had admitted the execution of the sale agreement and power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. He submits that defendant No.1 paid the portion of the consideration amount to the plaintiff and the remaining balance consideration amount was paid to the MUDA. He submits that pursuant to the sale agreement, the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit schedule - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 property in favour of defendant No.1. He submits that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. He submits that defendant No.1’s possession is required to be protected under Section 53A of the Act of 1882. He submits that defendant No.1 complied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the sale agreement and also in the power of attorney. He also submits that during the pendency of the second appeal, the MUDA executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. He submits that the plaintiff has not challenged the registered sale deed executed by the MUDA in favour of defendant No.2. He submits that the Court must take into consideration of the subsequent events while dealing with an appeal. 24. To buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta V. Ranbir B. Goyal - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 reported in AIR 2002 SC 665 Hence, he submits that the plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and he also submits that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., the plaintiff has not arrayed the MUDA as a party and he also submits that the plaintiff, before filing of this instant suit, filed a suit in O.S.No.542/1996 for the relief of permanent injunction in the said suit. The trial Court has recorded a finding that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. He also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. He submits that both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts and there is no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and he submits that the substantial question of law framed by this Court is a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 question of fact and not a substantial question of law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 25. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 26. Reg. Substantial Question of Law: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that the registered sale deed dated 30.03.1996, which was registered on 23.05.1996 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 does not bind the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for the relief of possession. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was allotted by the MUDA in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of allotment letter dated 14.03.1984 for a sum of Rs.37,777.40/- in 1988, the MUDA has enhanced the price of the site to Rs.1,33,332/-. The plaintiff admitted regarding the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 execution of the sale agreement in favour of defendant No.1 and power of attorney on 29.06.1992. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 had not complied with the terms and conditions of the sale agreement and committed a breach of contract. It is contended that defendant No.1 had not acquired any right, title or interest by virtue of the sale agreement dated 29.06.1992. Defendant No.1 had no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1, in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner based on allotment letter dated 14.03.1984. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff. He produced the documents, though the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner based - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 on the allotment letter, the plaintiff has not produced the allotment letter. The plaintiff has produced Exs.P1 and P2, which are the office copy of the legal notices issued to defendant No.1 calling upon defendant No.2 informing the defendants regarding the cancellation of the sale agreement and the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.542/1996, which discloses that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. While dismissing the suit, the trial Court has recorded its findings in para 13 that PW.1 therein during the cross-examination has categorically admitted that on 03.12.1993 and 09.12.1993, he had received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each from - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 defendant No.1 towards consideration amount and the plaintiff filed a suit on 31.07.1996 and recorded that the plaintiff had put defendant No.1 in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 18.02.1999. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.542/1996. Exs.P5, P7, P10 are the office copy of the legal notices. Exs.P6, P8, P9 and P11 are the reply notices, Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the sale agreement which discloses that the plaintiff had executed the sale agreement in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of the power of attorney, which discloses that the plaintiff has executed the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 authorising him to do all legal acts on behalf of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 the plaintiff, as listed in Ex.P14. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.542/1996, wherein the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Ex.P16 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by defendants in O.S.No.542/1996. Ex.P17 is the certified copy of the agreement (Ex.P13), Ex.P18 is the certified copy of the general power of attorney (Ex.P14). During the course of cross-examination, the plaintiff has admitted regarding the execution of the general power of attorney and the sale agreement in favour of the defendants and also filing of a suit in O.S.No.542/1996 and also admitted that the suit was dismissed and also admitted that the possession of defendant No.1 was protected as per Section 53A of the Act of 1882 in O.S.No.542/1996. 27. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1. He has deposed that the plaintiff executed the sale agreement and power of attorney in favour of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 defendant No.1 and in part performance of the contract, the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 in turn had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 2 by executing a registered sale deed. He deposed that defendant No.2 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. To prove the defence of the defendants, defendants produced the documents i.e., Ex.D1 is the sale agreement (Exs.P13 and P17), Ex.D2 is the general power of attorney (Exs.P14 and P18), Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.542/1996 (Ex.P15), Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the deposition in O.S.No.542/1996, Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.542/1996 (Ex.P3), Ex.D6 is the certified copy of the deposition in O.S.No.542/1996, Exs.D7 to D10 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 and Ex.D12 are the copies of legal notices, Exs.D11 and 13 are the office copy of the reply notices, Ex.D18 is the possession certificate. The possession was handed over in favour of defendant No.1 as the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. Ex.D19 is the allotment letter issued by the MUDA in favour of the plaintiff in respect of property measuring to the extent of 10 x 80 feet marginal land allotted in favour of the plaintiff in 1994 to the extent of 10 x 80 feet, Ex.D20 is the possession certificate which discloses that the MUDA delivered the possession of marginal land i.e., 10 x 80 feet on 16.02.1996, Ex.D21 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.D22 discloses that defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and the said sale deed was referred under Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957') has passed an order as per Ex.D22, Ex.D23 is the demand notice issued by the MUDA to the plaintiff, wherein directing - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 the plaintiff to pay the entire sale consideration amount, Ex.D24 is the original registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 30.03.1996, Ex.D25 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.542/1996 (Ex.P15 and Ex.D3), Ex.D26 written statement (Ex.P16), Ex.D27 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.542/1996 (Ex.P3 and Ex.D5), Ex.D28 is the written statement in O.S.No.542/1996 (Ex.P16 and Ex.D26). 28. During the cross-examination of DW.1, it is suggested to DW.1 that DW.1 has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D24. The said suggestion was denied by DW.1. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.2. She has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. From the perusal of the deposition of DWs.1 and 2, nothing has been elicited - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 from the mouth of this witnesses to disbelieve the evidence of DWs.1 and 2. 29. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the suit schedule property was owned by the MUDA. The said suit site was allotted in favour of the plaintiff by allotment letter dated 14.03.1984 for a sum of Rs.37,777.40/-. The MUDA has enhanced the consideration price from Rs.37,777.40/- to Rs.1,33,332/-. The plaintiff admitted regarding the execution of the sale agreement in favour of defendant No.1 and the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 on 29.06.1992 with certain conditions. The MUDA had delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1, who was the power attorney holder of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.542/1996 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The said - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement and contended that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property, in part performance of the contract. The trial Court in O.S.No.542/1996 has recorded a finding at paragraph No.12 which reads as follows: "12. As I have already stated the plaintiff has failed to prove his lawful possession over the schedule property. In view of the same he is not entitled for any relief." 30. I have already held that as per the terms of agreement to sell, defendant No.1 continued in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract and she has substantially complied with the terms of the said agreement. Thus, the 1st defendant is entitled to seek benefit under Section 53A of the Act of 1882. Admittedly, the first defendant applied for the grant of a bit of land measuring 10 x 80 feet in the name - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 of the plaintiff and got the said bit of land in the name of the plaintiff. After defendant No.1 had paid the value of the said land and also took the possession of the same from the MUDA Mysore. Admittedly, the plaintiff has neither applied for grant of the said bit of land nor paid any amount towards the said grant. Admittedly, the said bit of land is inclusive of the agreement to sell dated 29.06.1992. Admittedly, as on the date of applying for such a grant the said land and thereafter, defendant No.1 was in possession of the plaintiff’s side and defendant No.1 has paid the bit of land to the MUDA, Mysore. Defendant No.1 took the possession of the bit of land and she has been in enjoyment of the entire area measuring 60 x 80 feet. Defendant No.1 based on the said agreement, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 dated 30.03.1996 which was registered on 23.05.1996. After presentation of the sale deed, it was referred to - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 the District Register under Section 45A of the Act of 1957. The Deputy District Registrar has passed an order and the same was registered on 23.05.1996. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract and the finding recorded in O.S. No.542/1996 has attained a finality. The Courts below have rightly considered the material placed on record and passed the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. Hence, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants filed application in IA No.1/2016 for production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. In support of an application, defendant No.2 filed an affidavit stating that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction of possession. The said - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 suit was dismissed and the appeal was filed. The appeal came to be dismissed. During the pendency of this appeal, the MUDA executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 21.09.2015 and they also obtained sanctioned plan and license dated 23.04.2015 for putting up construction on the suit schedule property. The plaintiff did not file any objection to the said application and they also not disputed regarding the execution of the registered sale deed by the MUDA in favour of defendant No.2. Considering the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, but ultimately defendant No.1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Thus, defendant No.2 had acquired a title by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. This Court can take into consideration regarding the registered sale deed - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 executed by the MUDA in favour of defendant No.2. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Om Prakash Gupta (referred supra), accordingly, this Court has taken the judicial note of subsequent events regarding the execution of the registered sale deed by the MUDA in favour of defendant No.1. This application for production of additional evidence is filed in 2016. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to challenge the registered sale deed executed by the MUDA in favour of defendant No.1. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to entertain I.A.No.1/2016. 32. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (I) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (II) The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49104 RSA No. 500 of 2013 (III) I.A.No.1/2016 is rejected. (IV) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK, SSB CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4