- 1 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.535 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.H.N.ANANTHA KALYAN SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT.LALITHAMMA W/O LATE H.ANANTHA KALYAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SMT.A.JAYASHREE D/O LATE H.ANANTHA KALYAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI. A.HARISH S/O LATE H.N.ANANTHA KALYAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 4. SMT. A VEDASHREE D/O LATE H.N.ANANTHA KALYAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3,, 1ST CROSS K.R.NANJAPPA LAYOUT 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE -560 095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.ABHINAV .R AND VIVEK .B.N, ADVOCATES) - 2 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 AND: 1. 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) 1(D) 1(E) SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY LR'S SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA REDDY SRI.SURESH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA REDDY SRI.SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA REDDY SMT.SUKANYA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE RAMA REDDY SMT.SUSHEELA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O LATE RAMA REDDY 2. SRI. H N CHANDRAKANTH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. V.SHARADAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3. SRI. C.NANDEESH S/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SRI. C.HANUMANTHA PRASAD S/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS - 3 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 5. SMT. LATHA D/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.390 KAGGADASAPURA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 093 6. SMT.SRIDEVI W/O M.V.MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NO.14, 2ND CROSS OLD POLICE STATION ROAD MADIWLA, BENGALURU -560 068 7. SRI C.N.NARENDRA BABU S/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.390, KAGGADASAPURA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 093 8. 8(A). 8(B). 8(C). SRI. H.N.UMAPATHY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT.SHYAMALA W/O LATE H.N.UMAPATHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS JYOTHI SHREE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE H.N.UMAPATHY VIDHYASHREE AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS D/O LATE H.N.UMAPATHY - 4 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 8(D). HEMA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O LATE H.N.UMAPATHY ALL ARE R/AT NO.19, OLD NO.5/1, 12TH CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD S.R.NAGAR BENGALURU - 27 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.N.VISWANATHA AND T.N. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.1(1 TO 5); SRI. S.G. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2; R.3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R.8(1 TO 4) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W O-XLI, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.378/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.01.2026, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2011 passed in O.S.No.378/1995 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-15), Bangalore, wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of declaration that - 5 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 the sale deed dated 12.03.1973 said to have been executed by their mother Smt.Ankamma in favour of defendant No.1 is void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of injunction. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under; The original plaintiff, H.N. Anantha Kalyan, son of Smt.Ankamma, instituted the suit calling in question the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1973 executed by his mother in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that his mother - Smt.Ankamma had earlier executed a registered Release Deed dated 28.03.1945 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 thereby relinquishing her rights in the suit schedule property. Proceeding on this premise, the plaintiff contended that his mother had divested herself of title as early as 1945 and therefore, lacked the competence to convey any right, title or - 6 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 interest in favour of defendant No.1 under the subsequent sale deed dated 12.03.1973 (Ex.P.2). On this assertion, the plaintiff sought to question the validity and binding nature of the said sale deed. 4. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, stoutly denying the plaint averments in toto. Defendant No.1 specifically contended that the suit instituted by the original plaintiff was misconceived and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The execution, validity and legal effect of the alleged Release Deed dated 28.03.1945 were seriously disputed. Defendant No.1 further denied the plaintiff’s assertion that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also controverted the allegation of interference. It was additionally pleaded that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, warranting dismissal of the suit at the threshold. - 7 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. In support of their respective claims, both parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, namely plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(d), had failed to establish that the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1973 executed by Smt.Ankamma in favour of defendant No.1 was either void, illegal or not binding on them. Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. This Court has also independently re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both sides. 8. In the light of the rival submissions and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: - 8 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 (i) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1973 executed by Smt. Ankamma in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on them suffers from perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court? (ii) Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.2, having claimed title under the registered Release Deed dated 28.03.1945 (Ex.P.1), and having admittedly alienated the very same property in favour of Veeraswamy Pillai under the registered sale deed dated 16.04.1959 (Ex.D.1), could have maintained the present suit and had the requisite locus standi to question the subsequent sale deed executed by Smt. Ankamma in favour of defendant No.1 under Ex.P.2 dated 12.03.1973? (iii) What order? Findings on Point Nos.(i) and (ii):- 9. Before this Court proceeds to examine the locus standi of the plaintiff to challenge the sale deed executed by Smt. Ankamma in favour of defendant No.1, it becomes - 9 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 imperative to undertake a factual examination as to whether the plaintiff, defendant No.2 or their mother had retained any subsisting right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property. For this purpose, the various alienations effected by Smt.Ankamma as well as the subsequent alienation made by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 assume significance. This Court, therefore, deems it necessary to examine the entire chain of title and alienations by preparing a comparative chart, which has been extracted hereinabove, to ascertain whether any portion of the land bearing Sy.No.107 remained unalienated at any point of time. - 10 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 10. This Court has meticulously examined the original title deed dated 16.04.1937 marked at Ex.D.4, under which the plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Ankamma, purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.107 totally measuring 6 acres 3¾ guntas. Thus, there is no dispute that the entire extent of land bearing Sy.No.107 originally vested in Smt.Ankamma. The chain of alienations placed on record clearly establishes the following undisputed facts. Under Ex.D.13, Smt.Ankamma alienated 2 acres of land in favour of Venkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1940, which portion was thereafter renumbered as Sy.No.107/1, leaving the remaining extent of 4 acres 3 guntas as Sy.No.107/2. Thereafter, under Ex.D.5, being the registered sale deed dated 08.07.1940, Smt. Ankamma alienated a further extent of 2 acres in favour of Venkatappa. Having thus conveyed 4 acres out of the total extent, Smt. Ankamma executed a registered Release Deed dated 28.03.1945 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, evidenced at Ex.P.1, in respect of the remaining extent. - 11 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 11. Significantly, the plaintiff and defendant No.2, while asserting title under the said Release Deed, have suppressed the subsequent alienation made by them in favour of Veeraswami Pillai under the registered sale deed dated 16.04.1959, marked at Ex.D.1, which document came to be marked on confrontation. It is in spite of this complete divestment of title that the present suit has been instituted. 12. If the plaintiff and defendant No.2, having acquired title under the registered Release Deed dated 28.03.1945 to an extent of 2 acres 3 guntas, have themselves conveyed the said extent in favour of Veeraswami Pillai under Ex.D.1, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the original plaintiff, H.N.Anantha Kalyan, could have maintained the present suit challenging the alienation made by Smt.Ankamma in the year 1973 to an extent of 2 acres in favour of defendant No.1. In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks to nullify the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1973, marked at Ex.D.22, executed by Smt. Ankamma in favour of - 12 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 defendant No.1. When the sale deeds dated 24.06.1940 (Ex.D.13), 08.07.1940 (Ex.D.5) executed by Smt. Ankamma in favour of Venkatappa and the sale deed dated 16.04.1959 (Ex.D.1) executed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 in favour of Veeraswami Pillai are cumulatively examined, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the original owner, namely Smt.Ankamma, together with her sons, have alienated the entire extent of 6 acres 3¾ guntas comprised in Sy.No.107, leaving no residue whatsoever. 13. Once the plaintiff and defendant No.2 admittedly conveyed their interest in respect of 2 acres 3 guntas under Ex.D.1 in favour of Veeraswami Pillai, no right, title or interest survived in their favour thereafter. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act unequivocally mandates that a sale of immovable property of value exceeding Rs.100/- can be effected only by a registered instrument, and such transfer operates to divest the vendor of title immediately and absolutely. The plaintiff and defendant No.2, who claim title under the Release Deed dated - 13 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 28.03.1945, have unequivocally acted upon the same by executing the registered sale deed dated 16.04.1959 in favour of Veeraswami Pillai. Having thus alienated the property, they cannot approbate and reprobate by asserting a subsisting right which had already stood extinguished decades earlier. 14. It is also noteworthy that Smt.Ankamma purported to execute yet another sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1973. This Court is now called upon to examine whether the plaintiff has any locus to question the title claimed by defendant No.1 under the said sale deed dated 12.03.1973. A suit seeking declaratory relief under law is maintainable only when the plaintiff establishes a present, subsisting and enforceable legal right. The documents referred to hereinabove conclusively demonstrate that neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.2, nor even their mother Smt. Ankamma, retained any subsisting interest in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.107 at the relevant point of time. The plaintiff is clearly guilty of suppression of material facts, - 14 - RFA No. 535 of 2011 particularly the alienation made under Ex.D.1, and has approached the Court without any enforceable right. The validity or otherwise of the sale deed executed by Smt.Ankamma in 1973, and the title claimed by defendant No.1 thereunder, does not arise for adjudication at the instance of a plaintiff who lacks locus standi. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the "Negative". 15. Point No.(iii):- In view of the findings recorded on point Nos.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. (ii) I.A.No.1/2026 filed for production of additional documents and I.A.No.2/2026 filed for amendment of plaint are also dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM