The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O R.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT: NO.A6-397, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND STAGE, 3RD PHASE, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071. (BY SRI.SUHAS GOWDA.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MUNIYAPPA., ADVOCATE) … APPELLANT AND: SRI. C.RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE CHINNAKANNU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT: NO.3/2, SHARADA VIDYA, MANDIRA ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 087. (BY SRI.PANDURANGASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NATARAJ BABA.K., ADVOCATE) … RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
Legal Reasoning
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AT PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU, LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 CAV JUDGMENT
Legal Reasoning
Sri.Suhas Gowda.M, counsel on behalf of Sri.Muniyappa., for the appellant and Sri.Pandurangaswamy, counsel on behalf of Sri.Nataraj Baba.K., for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred to based on their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 12.06.2012, obtained by the defendant, is fraudulent and not binding on him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any charge over the suit schedule property. The defendant appeared through her counsel and filed a written statement. The issues were framed, the documents were marked, and the witnesses were examined. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2022 decreed the suit. Hence, the defendant has filed this appeal under section 96 of the CPC. 4. Counsel appearing for the respective parties urged several contentions. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 Sri.Suhas Gowda.M, counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial court's Judgment and Decree are perverse and opposed to the facts and probabilities of the case. Next, he submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fraud. A further submission is made that the finding on Ex.P.1 is contrary to the material evidence on record. Counsel vehemently contended that the Trial Court had erred in setting aside the registered sale deed. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are unsustainable in law. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decision: EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU KOIL TRUST VIRDHUNAGAR VS CHANDRAN AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 1034. Sri.Panduranga Swamy, Counsel for the respondent, justified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Among - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 other contentions, he submitted that the Trial Court, in extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly decreed the suit. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decisions: 1. AKKAMMA AND OTHERS VS VEMAVATHI AND OTHERS reported in (2021) 18 SCC 371. 2. NINGAWWA VS BYRAPPA SHIDDAPPA HIREKNRABAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 956. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with care. 6. The short point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court require interference. 7. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is a row house “A” type bearing BDA Block No.A6-397, first floor, situated at Domalur 2nd Stage, 3rd Phase, Bangalore and measuring East to West - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 3.40 meters and North to South 10.10 meters for a total area of 34.34 square meters. It was allotted to the plaintiff on lease cum sale base by the BDA. The plaintiff had leased the property to the defendant in 1997. The plaintiff was an employee of HAL and due to ill-heath, he took voluntary retirement in 2012. The plaintiff needed money because of medical issues, so he had agreed to mortgage the property for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. As the BDA had not executed an absolute sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, he approached BDA on 11.06.2012 and requested the authority to execute a sale deed in his favor. Notably, the BDA executed an absolute sale deed in favor of the plaintiff on 11.06.2012 and was registered in No.BDA-1-00839/2012-2013, Book No.1, CD No.BDAD177 dated 12.06.2012 in the office of the Sub Registrar BDA. As the plaintiff was unwell, the husband of the defendant accompanied him to the office. The defendant contends that the plaintiff executed a sale deed in her favor, and she has become the absolute owner of the property in question. However, the plaintiff denied the same and contended that the transaction was void and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 defendant defrauded him. To say that a sale deed is obtained by playing a fraud, one must take action. A good deal of argument is canvassed on the aspect of fraud. Counsel Sri.Suhas Gowda.M, in presenting his arguments, strenuously urged that the plaintiff needed money, and thus, he sold the property in favor of the defendant. On the other hand, counsel Sri.Pandurang Swamy, submitted that the defendant took advantage of and defrauded the plaintiff. Before I answer the point about fraud, let us quickly glance at fraud. FRAUD: Fraud and mistake as grounds for relief are alike founded on ignorance. There can be no mistake where there is no ignorance; there can be no fraud where there is no mistake. The Apex Court settled the law that a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded. The legal position will be different if there is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. Regarding the former, the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable. I have examined the material on record in this case very minutely. The plaintiff - initiated action for the cancellation of the sale deed, contending that the defendant took advantage of his illness and defrauded him. The defendant contended that she had become the absolute owner of the property in question under a sale deed dated 12.06.2012. To prove the same, she has not produced an original copy of the sale deed. 8. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1. In his cross- examination, he clearly stated that on 12.06.2012, he had been to the office of Sub-Registrar, BDA, situated at Palace Guttalli. He had denied that he had been to the Sub-Registrar’s office at Indira Nagar, Domalur. He had denied that he had executed a sale deed. The defendant was examined as DW-1, and she admitted that in 2012, the plaintiff was unwell, and the suit property was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 registered in the name of the plaintiff on 12.06.2012 in the office of the Sub – Registrar, BDA. 9. To answer the controversy, the dates and the printing hours of the deeds are quite relevant. The BDA executed a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff on the 11th day of June 2012 and was registered in the office of the Sub – Registrar, BDA on the 12th day of June 2012 at 12:09 p.m. The sale deed was printed at 1:14 p.m. in the office of the Sub- Registrar, BDA. The defendant contends that on the same day, the plaintiff executed a sale deed in her favor and was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar. Ex.P.2 is a Xerox copy of the alleged sale deed. It reflects that the deed was registered at 3:20 p.m. and printed at 3:28 p.m. in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Shivajinagar. 10. It is not in dispute that the registration of the sale deed executed by the BDA in favor of the plaintiff took place in the office of the Sub-Registrar BDA. The alleged sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant was done on the very same day in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Shivajinagar. If one visualizes the scenario, it is hard to believe - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 that the plaintiff executed a sale deed on the very same day. No doubt, because of the illness, the plaintiff at one point in time intended to mortgage the property but he never intended to part away with the property. He was deceived. Certain vague contentions were raised by the defendant that there was an agreement for the sale of the property, nonetheless, she had failed to prove the same. It is well known that fraud must be pleaded and proved. In the present case, there is a pleading and evidence. The Trial Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly concluded that the plaintiff is true. There is nothing more than this in the case. In my view what I have said as to the facts and law, I think the contention of the plaintiff must prevail. I, therefore, agree with the order passed by the Trial Court. Counsel for the respective parties has cited several decisions referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decisions. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12863 RFA No. 757 of 2022 11. The appeal is devoid of merit. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1