Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
Shivashankar - Appellant
Versus
M. Krishnappa - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 730 of 2008
Decided On : 06-08-2020
K.N. Nitish, Advocate, K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate, T. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of property can be established through a registered sale deed, and possession follows title. The court also clarified that a suit for ownership is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff is in possession of the property.
Headnote:
Title Dispute - Property Ownership - Sale Deed - Limitation Act - Transfer of Property Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a property, with the plaintiff claiming to be the absolute owner based on a registered sale deed, while the defendants claimed ownership based on a sale deed and adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the original suit, but the first appellate judge allowed the plaintiff's appeal and dismissed the defendant's appeal, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial judge found in favor of the defendants, holding that the plaintiff had no valid title or possession over the property. However, the first appellate judge reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff had established ownership through the registered sale deed and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court also held that possession follows title.
Issues: The issues included proof of title, lawful possession, interference by the defendants, and the entitlement of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Additional issues were framed regarding the binding nature of sale deeds, entitlement for declaration, and adverse possession by the second defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff's title was established through a registered sale deed, which superseded any incomplete or invalid title claimed by the defendants. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that possession follows title.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and decree were confirmed in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
N K Sudhindrarao, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2008 passed in RA.No.212/2003 by the I/C Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III/ Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein the appeal came to be allowed, whereby the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2003 passed in OS No.725/1995 by the Principal II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, came to be set aside consequently suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.
2. Original suit No.725/1995 was filed by one M. Krishnappa against Shivashankar and Suresh Bhajandas praying to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and further to hold and declare that the sale deed dated 28.4.1966 and also the sale deed dated 21.6.1991 will not bind the right of the plaintiff in any way and for permanent injunction as a consequential relief permanently restraining that defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be dismissed. The operative portion of the judgment in the original suit is as under:
"Suit is dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs."
3. In this connection, two appeals were preferred in R.A.No.212/2003 by plaintiff M.Krishnappa and R.A.No.96/2004 by 1st defendant/Shivashankar.
4. The learned first appellate judge, allowed R.A.No.212/2003 filed by the plaintiff and dismissed R.A.No.96/2004 filed by the 1st defendant and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.725/1995 came to be set aside and suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed. The operative portion of the judgment is as under:
"R.A.No.212/03 is allowed. R.A.No.96/04 is dismissed with costs.
"The Judgment and decree passed in O.S.725/95 by the court below is set aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for.
Copy of this judgment shall be placed in R.A.No.96/04."
1st defendant/appellant has come in appeal before this Court against allowing R.A.No.212/2003.
5. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to in accordance with their rankings as held by them before the trial court.
6. The claim of the plaintiff is that, he is the owner of the land measuring 01 acre 20 guntas in survey No.52, situate at Karivabanahall of Yeshwanthpur hobli, having purchased the same under the registered Sale Deed No.1190/78-79 dated 22-6-1978 from one Ramaswamy. Plaintiff further claims that his vendor Ramaswamy had acquired title under Sale Deed dated 05.04.1966 having purchased the same from one Muniyamma. All the revenue records pertaining to schedule property stand in his name and he is in possession of the schedule property. 1st defendant claims to have purchased the property from 2nd defendant who had purchased the same under the Sale Deed dated 28-04-1966.
7. The plaintiff further claims that there is no sale deed dated 28-04-1966, it is only an agreement of sale, as such, sale in favour of 1st defendant is bad in law. 1st defendant did not acquire title over the property. 2nd defendant does not have right, title, interest and possession.
During the year 2002, plaintiff got amended the plaint and included the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 28-04-1966 and sale deed dated 21-06-1991 will not bind the plaintiff.
8. 1St defendant in his written statement contended that he acquired valid title over the schedule property. His contention is that he purchased the schedule property under the absolute sale deed dated 21-6-1991 from the 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant acquired the right over the schedule property under a deed dated 28-04-1966 executed by actual owner Ramaswamy in his favour and it is a registered document. 2nd defendant was in possession of the schedule property, adverse and openly in hostile to the actual owner Ramaswamy since 1966 and thus, perfected the title through adverse possession and all the revenue records are
