Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
P.G.M. Patil, J.
Rohidas @ Ravi - Appellant
Vs.
Pramod - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 100653 of 2018
Decided On : 24-06-2019
Vishnu Bhat, Adv., Vyas Desai, Adv.
The burden of proof in property disputes lies with the party contesting ownership, and failure to challenge a valid property transfer in a competent Court weakens their claim.
Headnote:
gift deed - property ownership - O.S.No.111/2013, R.A.No.32/2017 - The court discussed the validity of a gift deed executed by plaintiff No.2 in favor of plaintiff No.1, declaring plaintiff No.1 as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The court also considered the defendants' claim of ownership and their refusal to vacate the property. The key legal provisions discussed include the validity of the gift deed, ownership rights, and the burden of proof in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and possession of a property, claiming that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner by virtue of a gift deed executed by plaintiff No.2. The defendants, residing in the property, contested the claim, alleging fraud and asserting their own ownership rights.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff No.1, declaring them as the absolute owner of the property and directing the defendants to vacate. The lower appellate Court upheld this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prove any substantial question of law.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the gift deed, ownership of the property, and the defendants' refusal to vacate the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the gift deed executed by plaintiff No.2 in favor of plaintiff No.1 was valid, and the defendants' claims of ownership were unsubstantiated. The burden of proof lay with the defendants, and their failure to challenge the gift deed in a competent Court weakened their case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the defendants were directed to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
P.G.M. Patil, J.
The defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.6.2017, passed in O.S.No.111/2013, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Karwar, and the judgment and decree dated 16.3.2018, passed in R.A.No.32/2017, on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karwar, have filed this regular second appeal.
2. The status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The appellants herein are the defendants before the trial Court and appellants before the lower appellate Court. The respondent herein is the plaintiff No.1 before the trial Court and respondent before the lower appellate Court.
4. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.111/2013 for the relief of declaration and possession to declare that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed dated 3.10.2011 executed by plaintiff No.2 and for delivery of possession of the property from the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff No.1 that the suit schedule property was self acquired property of plaintiff No.2 who is none other than the father of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2 purchased the said property from its erstwhile owner Sri Balachandra Laxman Shetty by way of registered sale deed dated 1.2.1980 for valuable consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter the said land was converted into non agricultural land. Plaintiff No.2 was in service in police department and after his retirement he got repaired the suit house and was residing with his children, plaintiff No.1, Subhas and defendant No.1. During his old age plaintiff No.2 wanted to make arrangement and settlement of his self acquired property. Accordingly he executed a gift deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 which was duly registered on 3.10.2011. In pursuance of the gift deed, mutation was effected in the name of plaintiff No.1 in the records. Defendant No.1 is staying in the suit house. He pleaded with the plaintiffs to continue him in the suit house temporarily for some time. On the request of defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 allowed him to stay in the suit house purely on permissible basis. Subsequently defendant No.1 went on seeking time to vacate and started showing his colour by refusing to vacate the suit house and also started ascertaining his ownership. Therefore plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice to defendants on 10.5.2013. The defendants did not comply the said notice. Therefore the plaintiffs filed the said suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. In pursuance of suit summons, defendants No.1 and 2, the husband and wife appeared before the trial Court and filed the written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The defendants are staying in the suit house belonging to plaintiff No.2 who is father of defendant No.1. They have denied that plaintiff No.1 is the present owner of the suit house. Plaintiff No.1 might have played the role of fraud of gift deed as his father was aged 92 years and not in a fitness of mind. Defendant No.1 has got equal share in the property of plaintiff No.2. The alleged gift deed is created by the plaintiffs in order to deceive the defendants. Plaintiff No.1 is a retired person who served in Food Corporation and constructed a house at Hubballi. Defendant No.1 is working on daily wage basis and defendant No.2 is the housewife. The suit is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues. In order to prove their respective contentions, plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and also got examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.11. The defendants No.1 and 2 got examined themselves as DW.1 and 2 and no documents were produced. The Judge of the trial Court after hearing both the parties, decreed the suit. It was declared that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the gift deed dated 3.10.2011 executed by plaintiff No.2 and f
