The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SHARIFF SAB S/O LATE SRI KALANDAR SAB AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O DHONABHAGHATTA BHADRAVATHI. (BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SHABBIR SAB
Legal Reasoning
also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR formulated the point whether the learned Judge is justified in holding that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and also taken note of the fact that admittedly, suit property is a vacant land and also taken note of the fact that plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property on 03.05.1999. The First Appellate Court also taken note of cross- examination of D.W.1 regarding handing over of all the original documents to him and the same are in possession of the plaintiff which has been discussed in paragraph No.22 and also made with observation with regarding to the reasoning given by the Trial Court in paragraph No.23 that plaintiff is having better title than the defendants, since the property was sold immediately by the defendant No.1 and also observation is made that till date defendant No.1 has not challenged the sale deed before the competent authority and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, present regular second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR error in holding that secondary evidence of sale deed dated 03.05.1999 is alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 and to that effect, Court has to frame substantial question of law. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the second appeal, material also disclose that sale was made on 03.05.1999 and both the Courts made an observation that said sale deed was never questioned till date and law is also clear that title follows possession and the said observation is made by the Trial Court and the same is concurred by considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the First Appellate Court. When such material is available before the Court, the question of framing any substantial question of law with regard to considering the secondary evidence of sale deed dated 03.05.1999 does not arise and there is no error on the part of the Trial Court in appreciating both question of fact and question of law. When such being the case, when there is no any substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal, question of admitting the second appeal does not arise. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
S/O SRI. UMAR SAB AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. JUBEDA BI W/O SHARIFF SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. MUBARAK S/O SHARIF SAB AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 4. MUBEENA W/O RASOOL SAB AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS HOUSEWIFE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. ASIF S/O SHARIFF SAB AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS COOLIE WORK 6. NUSRATH S/O SHARIF SAB AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DHONABHAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2025. PASSED IN R.A.NO.15/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.190/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court by filing a suit is that he is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of filing the suit and defendants are trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. The main contention of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and he had purchased the suit schedule property through sale deed dated 03.05.1999 for valuable sale consideration from his vendor i.e., defendant No.1 and the same has been registered before the office of the Sub-registrar and from the date of purchase, he has been in possession of the property. On the date of purchase, it was an agricultural land and property which was purchased by the plaintiff was self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and it was restored by order of the Tahsildar of Bhadravathi and thereby khatha was mutated in the name of the defendant No.1 and thereafter, it was mutated in the name of the plaintiff after purchasing for valuable consideration. The defendants are making attempt to interfere with possession of the plaintiff. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18962 RSA No. 542 of 2025 HC-KAR 4. The Trial Court having considering pleadings of the parties, formulated the issues and answered issue Nos.1 to 3 as ‘affirmative’ that the plaintiff is in possession and defendants are making attempt to interfere with possession and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has made out a case to grant the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.16 made an observation with regard to non-execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and also an observation is made that they could have filed a suit for declaration to set aside the same before the appropriate Court. Mere denying the execution of sale deed does not mean to setting up title over the plaint schedule property just to resist the suit. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.17 made an observation that title follows the possession and plaintiff is in possession of the property. The Trial Court in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 also discussed the same and granted the relief of permanent injunction. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15/2024. The First Appellate Court
Decision
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55