- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2838 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: M S RAMARAO S/O LATE MOHARE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PENSIONER, VISHWESHWARA IRAN AND STEEL LIMITED, BHADRAVATHI., NOW RESIDING AT NO. 5676/2, 11TH CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANGERE-577 004. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY T.S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.MALLIKARJUNAYYA S/O. CHALLAKERE MANGANAHALLI CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED KEB ENGINEER. R/O PEENYA, SRS COLONY, ALSO, AT BENGALURU CITY, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, 3RD STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, ADARSHA BADAVANE, 7TH CROSS, DOOR NO.72 ALSO, AT C/O NO.5048/34, 7TH CROSS, A BLOCK, S. S. LAYOUT, DAVANGERE - 577 004. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 2. SMT. MANJULA UDAY, W/O UDAY. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O 5048/34, 7TH CROSS, A BLOCK, S. S. LAYOUT, DAVANGERE - 577 004. 3. SRI. BALARAJ, S/O. DON'T KNOW, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC OWNER MADHURA STUDIO, NO.2625/23, B.I.E.T. COLLEGEROAD, DAVANGERE-577 004. 4. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O DON'T KNOW, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, C/O NO.2625/23, B.I.E.T. COLLEGE ROAD, DAVANGERE-577 004. 5. COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE CITY CORPORATION, OPPOSITE TO DAVANGERE RAILWAY STATION, P. B. ROAD, DAVANGERE -577 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.87/2017 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff has approached this Court in this Regular First Appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2024 in O.S. No.87/2017 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 3. Suit is for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare that the sale deed dated 23.10.1980 is not binding upon the plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property was acquired on 29.05.1975 by his father-Siddappa on his behalf through a family partition. It is averred that he was unaware of the registered sale deed dated 23.10.1980 allegedly executed in favour of defendant No.1. It is averred that his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 signature was forged and the sale deed was registered through collusion. It is further stated that at the time of the alleged registration, he was employed at VISL, Bhadravathi and he came to know about the sale only in the year 2016, after which he filed the present suit. 4. Upon service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared and filed their written statement. Defendant No.2 admitted the fact that the suit property was acquired by the plaintiff under partition deed dated 29.05.1975. It is averred that defendant No.1-the father of defendant No.2 acquired the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 23.10.1980 executed by the plaintiff. From the date of the sale deed, defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is averred that defendant No.1 has executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 21.07.2014 and since then, defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of suit property. It is averred that plaintiff has lost all his rights in respect of suit property in light of the registered sale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 deed dated 23.10.1980 executed in favour of defendant No.1 and suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff has executed the sale deed on 23.10.1980 in favour of defendant No.1. Further, observed that the plaintiff failed to prove his absence before the Sub-Registrar on 23.10.1980, and the plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence showing that he was working at VISL, Bhadravathi on the specific date. The Trial Court, on consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. 6. The point that arises for consideration before this Court is: “Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and whether the same warrants any interference by this Court?” 7. The plaintiff alleging forgery of his signature on the sale deed dated 23.10.1980 filed suit for declaration to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 declare the sale deed is not binding upon him and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff also claimed that as on the date when the sale deed was executed, i.e., on 23.10.1980, he was working at VISL, Bhadravathi, implying he could not have been present before the Sub- Registrar. The plaintiff claims that he learned about the sale deed only in the year 2016. In order to prove that his signature was forged on the sale deed dated 23.10.1980, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to substantiate his allegation. Strict proof is required in case of forgery or fraud, and mere denial is not sufficient. The plaintiff has neither produced any employment record nor any credible evidence that he was absent on the date of execution. What remains for the Court to consider is that the plaintiff was signatory to the sale deed which was executed on 23.10.1980. The suit has been filed in the year 2017 nearly after 37 years of its registration. The long and unexplained delay raises doubt about his claim. A registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28903 RFA No. 2838 of 2024 unless strong evidence is brought to rebut this presumption. The plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption effectively and the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. The defendants establish that they are in possession of the property after the sale deed dated 23.10.1980. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The regular first appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 29.10.2024 in O.S. No.87/2017 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere stands confirmed. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20