The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2203 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SHRI. PUTTARAJU S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT CHATRADA BEEDHI, HANUMEGOWDA BUILDING, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-562129 (BY SMT. SUMATHI PAULIN M., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. SMT. GAYATHRI BAI W/O K CHANDRABAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NEW ADAATS OFFICE, 9TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, AND ALSO AT SHANUBOGANAHALLI, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562129 SRI BABU RAO S/O LATE BABU SINGH, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 2. SMT. AHALYA BAI, W/O LATE SHIR BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SHANUBOGANAHALLI, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562129 3. SHRI. JANARDHAN SINGH S/O LATE BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SHANUBOGANAHALLI, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562129 …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 08.04.2025 R1, R2 & R3 ARE H/S) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2020 PASSED IN OS NO. 247/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed in R.A.No.21/2000 by the Principal Senior Civil - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2020 passed in O.S.No.247/2012 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The Appellant was defendant no.4, respondent no.1 was the plaintiff, and the other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows : The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.80/3 measuring 25 guntas, for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 17.4.2010 entered between defendant no.4 and defendant no.1, and a consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 schedule property. She had purchased the suit schedule property from Smt K.V.Jayamma w/o. Late B.Madaiah under the registered sale deed dated 16.8.1996. Pursuant to the sale deed, the katha was transferred to the plaintiff’s name. Before the transfer in the name of the B.Madaiah, it was standing in the name of K.V.Jayamma i.e., the plaintiff’s vendor. Initially, B.Madaiah was in possession of the property. Thereafter, his wife K.V.Jayamma was in possession. After purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 1 illegally got changed the khata of the suit schedule property in his name. Defendants No. 1 to 3 by, illegal khata executed a registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 4 on 17.04.2010. It is contended that, the defendants, taking undue advantage of the revenue entries, are trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.2. Defendants No.2 and 3, despite service of summons, have failed to appear before the trial Court. Hence, they were placed exparte. 3.3. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that, the suit schedule property belonged to defendant No.1-Babu Rao. He got the same to his share in the division and accordingly, the katha was made in his name under MR No.49/2000-01. Defendants No.1 to 3, for their family necessity, and to clear some debts, sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 17.4.2010, and placed him in actual and physical possession. Defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against the Defendant No. 4. 3.4. The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, and marked 18 documents as exhibits P.1 to P.18. On the other hand, defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and marked 30 documents as exhibits D.1 to D.30. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessing verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost vide judgment dated 24.07.2020. It was declared that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, the sale deed dated 17.4.2010 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 was cancelled and consequently, the defendants were restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. 3.5. Defendant No.4, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2020 passed in O.S.No.247/2012, filed an appeal in R.A.No.21/2020 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara. The first Appellate Court, on re-assessing the verbal, and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 judgment dated 30.10.2023. Defendant No.4, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No.4. 5. Learned counsel for defendant No.4 submits that, the plaintiff has not acquired any title by virtue of Ex.P.1. She submits that, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for mere declaration without seeking the consequential relief of possession, is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. To buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vasantha (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (dead) through legal representatives reported in (2024) 5 Supreme Court Cases 282. She submits that, defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the owner by a registered - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 sale deed dated 17.4.2010 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.1. She also submits that, the plaintiff has failed to establish the title of her vendor. The said aspect was not considered by the courts below. Hence, she submits that, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are arbitrary, and erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel Defendant No. 4. 7. The plaintiff to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove that, the plaintiff is the owner, and in possession of the suit schedule property, produced the document Ex.P.1, a certified copy of the registered sale deed, which discloses that, the plaintiff’s vendor has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 16.8.1996, and the vendor of the plaintiff was one - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Smt.K.V.Jayamma w/o.late B Madaiah. Based on the registered sale deed, the plaintiff’s name was entered in the revenue records. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of MR, exhibits P.3 to P.9 are the RTC extracts standing in the name of the plaintiffs, Ex P.10 to P.12 are the RTC extracts standing in the name of Defendant No.1, Ex P.13 is the RTC extract standing in the name of Defendant No. 4. Ex.P.14 is the patta book, Ex.P.15 is the tax paid receipts, Ex.P.16 is the notice and Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.04.2010 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4, Ex.P.18 is the encumbrance certificate. Further, the plaintiff to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, examined two witnesses, PWs.2 and 3. They have deposed that, the plaintiff became the absolute owner under Ex.P.1, and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 8. On the other hand, defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1. He has deposed that, he had purchased the suit - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 schedule property from defendants No. 1 to 3 under the registered sale deed dated 17.4.2010. Defendants No.1 to 3 have delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4, and based on the registered sale deed dated 17.4.2010, the name of defendant No.4 was entered in the katha. Defendant No.4, to prove his defence, has produced Ex.D.1, which is the registered sale deed 17.4.2010 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4, Ex.D.2 is the mutation extract, Ex.D.3 is the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, Exs.D.4 and D.5 are the mutation register extract, Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of the order sheet in R.A.(LKP) 142/2008-09, Ex P.7 is the Appeal memo, EX P.8 is a certified copy of I.A.’s, Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of the written argument, Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of the order passed in R.A. (LKP) No.142/2008-09, Ex.D.11 is the encumbrance certificate and Exs.D.12 to D.30 are the RTC extracts. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 9. From a perusal of the records, it discloses that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 16.8.1996. Defendant No.4 had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 17.4.2010 i.e., the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property much before defendant No.4. The plaintiff has produced the sale deed marked as Ex.P.1, and further the trial Court, from the perusal of Ex.P.1, wherein there is a recital in the registered sale deed regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. As of date of the execution of the registered sale deed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4, defendants No.1 to 3 had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The sale deed executed by defendants no.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court, considering the entire evidence on record, declared that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner, and in possession of the suit schedule property, and recorded a finding that, defendant No.4 has failed to prove that, he is in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 possession of the suit schedule property and also failed to prove that he is the bonafide purchaser of the property. The first Appellate Court, on re-assessing verbal and documentary evidence, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. It is the case of defendant No.4 that, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for declaration, without seeking the consequential relief of possession is not maintainable. 11. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction wherein the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts, that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. 12. Further, learned counsel for defendant No.4 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vasantha supra wherein in the said case, the plaintiff has sought only for the relief of declaration, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 the plaintiff did not seek the consequential relief of permanent injunction or possession. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the suit for mere declaration without seeking consequential relief is not maintainable. The said citation does not apply to the case on hand. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akkamma and others vs. Vemavathi and Others reported in (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 371 held that, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, held that, “there is no bar in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting standalone declaratory relief. The trial Court came to a positive finding that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, but it is held that, in the absence of a relief of possession by the plaintiff, a declaration of title cannot be granted. We have already expressed our disagreement with this line of reasoning. Further held that, the plaintiff’s claim for being in possession, however failed. Thus, no injunction could be granted restraining the defendants from disturbing or interfering with the original plaintiff’s possession of the suit land. But, as the trial Court found the ownership of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 the original plaintiff was proved, in our view, the original plaintiff was entitled to declaration that, he was the absolute owner of the suit property and further held that, there is no bar in granting such a decree for declaration and such a declaration could not be denied on the reasoning that no purpose would be served in giving such declaration.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not sought a relief of possession and permanent injunction. The Judgment in Akkamma (Supra) is applicable to the case on hand. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that, the plaintiff has proved that, she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15795 RSA No. 2203 of 2023 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
Decision
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed; The judgments and decrees passed by the courts i) ii) below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.1/2023 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. rs Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE