The High Court reinstated the plaintiff's title and possession, emphasizing that the Appellate Court overstepped by declaring title for the defendant without a formal claim.

ORDER :

1. Heard, Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

The respondents are represented by Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, learned counsel.

2. The present appeal arises out of the O.S. No.344 of 1986 where the original plaintiff was Mr. B.S. Puttamadaiah and the original defendant No.1 was one, Eraiah. The appellants before us are the legal heirs of the defendant -Eraiah and the respondents are the legal heirs of the plaintiff -Puttamadaiah in the O.S. No.344 of 1986.

3. In the suit the prayers of the plaintiff were to the following effect:

“(a) to declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the Scheduled property – amended as per the Order of the Court dated 24.04.1989;

(b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or anybody on his behalf from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property;

(c) Recovery of court costs and for grant of such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.”

4. The subject matter of the suit was certain land in Bavakal Village in Mandya District. Shivanna was the owner of the said land. The land owner entered into a sale agreement on 19.04.1982 with the plaintiff-Puttamadaiah for consideration of Rs.1,500/- and the said sale agreement dated 19.04.1982 came to be registered on 27.08.1983 after receipt of the balance consideration. The plaintiff’s case is based on the sale agreement dated 19.04.1982 (Ex.P1) and the registered sale deed dated 27.08.1983 (Ex.P2).

5. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is based on an unregistered deed by the same vendor Shivanna with Eraiah defendant No.1 on 16.07.1983 (Ex.D1). But when the vendor refused to execute the sale, the same was compulsorily registered on 24.10.1986 under the provisions of Sections 73, 74 and 75 of the Registration Act, 1908. The pleaded case of the defendant in the written statement was that the original owner Shivanna had executed an absolute sale deed dated 16.07.1983 after receipt of substantial sale consideration but since the vendor did not turn up for registration, the registration of the sale deed was done on 24.10.1986 under Section 73 of the Registration Act.

6. Initially, the respondent filed the suit with prayer for injunction only but later the relief for declaration was added to the suit. On 05.02.1994, the suit came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge at Mandya where the Court concluded that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the agreement dated 19.04.1982 (Ex.P1) but also the subsequent sale deed on 27.08.1983 (Ex.P2). On that basis, the Court held that when the vendor had already sold the land, the alleged sale deed dated 16.07.1983 (Ex.D1) in favour of the defendant, could not have inured any benefit to the buyer. It was therefore concluded that the plaintiff was the bona fide purchaser for value and acquired title to the suit property by virtue of the Agreement (Ex.P1) and the sale deed (Ex.P2). The suit was accordingly decreed against the defendant declaring the plaintiff to be the owner in possession of the suit property. Injunction order was also issued restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

7. The aggrieved defendant then filed appeal before the District Judge at Mandya challenging the judgment dated 05.02.1994 in favour of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court formulated an additional point for consideration as to whether the defendant could prove that the sale deed dated 16.07.1983 (Ex.D1) was executed by Shivanna and what is the impact of the said sale deed. The Court referred to the chronological dates of the Agreement(Ex.P1), Ex.P2 deed relied by the plaintiff and the Ex.D1 sale deed relied upon by the defendant. It was then concluded that “the sale deed in favour of plaintiff do not convey title and sale deed in favour of defendant conveys title to defendant it is prior in p