- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2143 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE K SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SRI M NAGARAJU, S/O LATE K SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. SRI M MANJUNATHA BABY, S/O LATE K SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 4. SRI M SURESH BABU, S/O LATE K SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 5. SMT M MANJULA, D/O LATE K SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 6. SMT M VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O LATE K SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.31/33, BANASHANKARAMMA ROAD, MOODLAPPA CROSS, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560 004. 7. SMT R BHAGYALAKSHMI, D/O LATE K NAGARATHANAMMA, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 8. SRI R CHANDRA KUMAR S/O LATE K NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 9. SRI R VENKATESH BABU, S/O LATE K NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT R.CHANDRASHEKAR, NO.33,SUSHEELA ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560 004. 10. SMT K LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE N KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.31,TELECOM COLONY, 1ST CROSS, NEW TIMBER LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 026. 11. SMT K GUNAMMA, D/O LATE N KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.342,ANJANAPURA, 10TH BLOCK,ANJANAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560062, ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT K GUNAMMA, D/O LATE N KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.342, ANJANAPURA, 10TH BLOCK, ANJANAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 062. 12. SMT K ANNAPOORANAMMA, D/O LATE N KRISHNAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 12(A) SRI SANDEEP S, S/O LATE ANNAPOORNAMMA AND H C SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.847, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, NEAR SRINAGAR BUS STOP, KALLAPPA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS AND ALSO FOR LRS OF DECEASED A-12 AS 12(A)) AND: 1. SMT VAJIR @ BIBIJAN, W/O MUSEKHAN, MAJOR, R/AT 8/1, DR UMAR SHARIEF ROAD, MOHAMMED BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 2. SRI BALAN, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.9,DURGAMMA TEMPLE STREET, M.T.B.ROAD, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU. 3. SRI D UDAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE D S DASHARATHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.149,1ST MAIN, HANUMAGIRI HAREHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W. SEC.96 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.8911/2015 ON THE FILE THE LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in OS No.8911/2015 on the file of the LVI Additional City Civil Court at Bengaluru. 2. The suit is for the following relief: The plaintiffs sought cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 22.10.1959 registered in favour of defendant No.1 and the registered sale deed dated 26.01.1963 registered in the name of defendants No.2 and 3. 3. The suit is dismissed on the ground that the allegation relating to the fraudulent transactions in respect of aforementioned two sale deeds is not established. The suit is also dismissed on the ground of limitation as well. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 4. It is necessary to notice that the person who sold the property namely Krishnappa died in the year 1983. The suit is filed by 12 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.1 to 9 are the grandchildren of the vendor. Plaintiffs No.10 to 12 are the children of the vendor. 5. The Trial Court has held that the allegation relating to fraudulent transaction is not established on appreciation of the evidence placed before it. As already noticed, the Court has also dismissed the suit as time barred. 6. The defendants raised a contention that the defendants have purchased the properties under valid registered said deeds and they are in possession of the properties after evicting the tenant occupying the premises in due process of law pursuant to an order of the Court in HRC No.2454/1981. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants would urge that the plaintiffs' grandfather - the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs namely Krishnappa purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 14.10.1959 and under the said sale deed, he has purchased the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 property measuring 264 square feet and also property measuring 308 square feet. Then in terms of another sale deed dated 03.07.1959 marked at Exhibit P3, he has purchased a property measuring 30x93 feet. 8. Elaborating his submission that the sale deed is the outcome of fraud, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants would urge that the sale deed dated 22.10.1959 is said to have been executed in favour of defendant No.1, the property covered is only 89 square feet and in the second sale deed dated 26.01.1963, the property covered under the sale deed is 572 square feet. 9. Assuming that the defendants have purchased the properties under the aforementioned sale deeds at Exhibit D1 and Exhibit D2, the total extent of the properties does not add up to the properties purchased by the plaintiffs' predecessor Krishnappa, as such, he would contend that the suit could not have been dismissed. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants would also urge that the boundaries shown in the sale deeds in the name of the defendants do not match with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 the boundaries shown in the sale deeds in the name of predecessor in title- Krishnappa. 11. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 13. The following points would arise for consideration: (a) Whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the plea of fraud is not established? (b) Whether the suit is time barred? 14. The admitted factual position is that, there are two sale deeds in the name of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. The first sale deed is dated 22.10.1959 and the second sale deed is dated 26.01.1963. Owner Krishnappa, who is said to have executed the aforementioned sale deeds dated 22.10.1959 and 26.01.1963 died in the year 1983. That means the vendor survived for 24 years after the execution of the first sale deed and survived 19 years after the execution of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 second sale deed. The vendor has not chosen to question the aforementioned sale deeds. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would urge that, the vendor was not aware of the execution of the sale deeds, as no such sale deed was executed and it a case of impersonation. Thus, it is contended that the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged sale deeds only after the demise of the vendor. 16. It is to be noticed that, though Krishnappa died in the year 1983, Class I heirs of Krishnappa did not take steps to enter their names in the property records after his demise as successors. It appears that first attempt was made to enter the names of the successors of Krishnappa in the property records in the year 2014. This would indicate the fact that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the properties. Had the plaintiffs been in possession of the properties, they would have moved an application to enter the names of the plaintiffs in the property records. 17. Apart from that, in the cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the defendants are in possession of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 properties. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that, the defendants are trespassers. 18. It is relevant to notice that the suit is filed not for the relief of possession, but for cancellation and injunction. The plaintiffs asserted to be in possession of the properties till the date of filing of the suit which was in the year 2015. If at all the plaintiffs were in possession of the properties, they would have taken steps to move an application to enter their names in the property records, which is not done. Such an attempt is made for the first time in the year 2014. 19. Apart from that, it is also relevant to notice that the defendants have filed HRC No.2454/1981 proceeding against the tenants who are occupying the property. Said order has attained finality. Thereafter, there was an execution proceeding in E.P.No.73/1999 pursuant to the aforementioned order in the HRC proceeding. Through the process of the Court, possession is delivered to the legal representative of the purchaser of the property. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would urge that the plaintiffs are not parties to the said HRC proceeding and the said judgment cannot be used - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 against the plaintiffs, what is required to be noticed is the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the sale deed is outcome of fraud or impersonation as alleged. The plea and evidence relating to impersonation is not sufficient to uphold the contention. 20. Under these circumstances, the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have not established their case has to be accepted. 21. Apart from that, the said deeds are of the year 1959 and 1963. Suit is filed for cancellation of the said deeds in the year 2015. The suit is a time barred. 22. The Court is of the view that the suit is time barred for the simple reason that the plaintiff No.11/PW.1 in her cross- examination has admitted that the defendants are in possession of the property. The possession of the defendants is within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that would have been the cause of action for the plaintiffs to seek appropriate relief. That is not done. The suit filed 32 years after the demise of the vendor is hopelessly barred by limitation. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8887 RFA No. 2143 of 2018 23. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the properties purchased by Krishnappa under the registered sale deed of the year 1959 are more in extent and the properties said to have sold by Krishnappa to defendants No.1 and 2 are lesser in extent and that the suit could not have been dismissed is the contention. 24. The Court is of the view that the defendants are the owners of the properties purchased under the sale deed of the year 1959 and 1963 and nothing beyond that. 25. If the plaintiffs are still in possession of the property not sold to the defendants, it is for the plaintiffs to seek appropriate relief that is available under the law. 26. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67