The main legal point established is that specific pleading and evidence of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation are necessary to prove a sale deed as voidable, and the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to declare a sale deed as void due to violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment decree dated 16-03-2012 passed in R.A.No.39/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Srirangapatna, wherein the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 25-10-.2008 passed in OS.No.163/2005 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, was confirmed.

2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred in accordance with their rankings held by them before the trial court.

3. Originally, suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in O.S.No.163/2005 before the trial Court for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property which is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.95 of Bonthagally Village measuring an extent of 32 guntas. She purchased the same on 26.11.1990 from one Chikkamma. The 2nd defendant is stated to be the son of the plaintiff and 1st defendant is the purchaser of the schedule property. She claims that fraud was played on her by the 1st defendant purchaser and her own son defendant No.2. She was made to sign on the document purported to be the registered sale deed, wherein the schedule property was conveyed by her in favour of 1st defendant. In this connection, 2nd defendant who is her own son cooperated with the 1st defendant in bringing up the registered sale deed of the schedule property whereby the plaintiff was divested off her ownership in a deceptive and cunning manner. She further claims that she had no notice or knowledge of the contents of the documents which came to be claimed as sale deed.

4. The 1st defendant upon his appearance denied the allegations of the plaintiff and further claims that after due deliberation and after receiving the sale consideration, sale deed was executed in his favour by the plaintiff. Further 1st defendant vehemently denies that the plaintiff had no intention to execute the registered sale deed of the schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant. It is stated that, plaintiff and the 2nd defendant have sold the schedule property for a valuable consideration to counter the legal necessity. The document executed therein is a sale deed.

5. The learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P10 on behalf of plaintiff and oral evidence of DW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.D1 to 3 on behalf of defendants.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and on perusal of the materials on file, suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge on 25.10.2008. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree by the learned trial Judge, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in R.A.No39/2005.

7. The learned first Appellate Judge, after hearing the parties though his judgment dated 16-03-2012 passed in R.A.No.39/2005 dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff/appellant is before this Court in this second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC.

8. While admitting the appeal on 16.06.2014, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the courts below erred in not putting the burden of proving the sale deed dated 30.7.2005 as a genuine document, on the first defendant?

2. Whether the judgments of the courts below are perverse due to non consideration of the relevant facts and consideration of irrelevant facts and due to error of law?

9. On 6.3.2019, one more substantial question of law is framed by this Court which is as under:

Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed was voidable at his option?

10. After hearing, the following additional substantial question of law is framed today,

Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to declare a sale deed as null and void in case of violation of Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?