Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Venkatesha – Appellant
Versus
K.M. Venkatamuniyappa – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 397 of 2014 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 06-07-2023
PROPERTY LAW - Partition and Ownership - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 43; Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 - The court discussed the legal implications of ownership transfer, particularly under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, which allows a transfer by an unauthorized person to be validated if the transferor later acquires the title. The court also examined the provisions of the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act, which affected the ownership status of the property in question. The interpretations of these sections were pivotal in determining the validity of the plaintiff's claim to ownership despite the initial lack of title at the time of the sale deed execution.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that a partition deed executed by the defendants was not binding on him and claimed ownership of a property he purchased in 1973. The defendants contended that the property was Inam land belonging to a temple and that the plaintiff's sale deed was invalid as the original owner had no title at the time of the sale.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court found in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the property sold under the sale deed was indeed the suit property and that the rectification deed was valid. The court concluded that the partition deed was not binding on the plaintiff's rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proved ownership of the suit property? 2. Whether the partition deed was void? 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, concluding that the plaintiff acquired valid title to the property despite the original sale deed being executed when the seller had no title. The court emphasized the importance of boundaries and the rectification deed in establishing ownership.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the First Appellate Court's decision that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and that the partition deed is not binding on him.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 22/2/2014 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli in R.A.No.41/2011 and confirm the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC in O.S.No.334/2007 dtd. 15/10/2011.
2. The parties will be referred to their ranking as in the Trial Court. Appellants 1 and 2 were defendants 1 and 2, respondent No.1 was plaintiff and respondents 2(a) to 2(d) are legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3 and respondents 3(a) to 3(c) are the legal representatives of defendant No.4 and respondent No.4 was defendant No.5 in O.S.No.334/2007.
3. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking declaration that partition deed dtd. 17/10/2005 entered into between the father of defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property and relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or creating any charges or any way meddling with the suit schedule property.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing Sy.No.162 of Boodigere village measuring 1 acre 18 1/4 guntas, having purchased the same through the registered sale deed dtd. 31/5/1973 executed by defendant No.4. It is stated that rectification deed dtd. 13/3/1997 came to be executed to rectify the mistake in the sale deed regarding survey number of the property. It is stated that originally the suit property was belonging to one Thimmadasappa, who had executed the registered sale deed on 17/5/1971 in favour of the 3rd defendant, then the 3rd defendant sold it to 4th defendant through registered sale deed dtd. 24/3/1972. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from 4th defendant under the registered sale deed dtd. 31/5/1973. The plaintiff applied for mutation, but the 5th defendant has not made the proper entry in the concerned records. It is stated that original owner Thimmadasappa has partitioned the property by distributing the same to his sons i.e. defendants 1 and 2 through registered partition deed dtd. 17/10/2005. It is stated that the said partition deed is null and void, as on the date of the said document itself Thimmadasappa had no legal right in respect of the said property. The revenue authorities have not effected the entry in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records. Taking undue advantage of the same, Thimmadasappa and defendants 1 and 2 have partitioned the said property. Claiming the above reliefs, the suit came to be filed.
5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement. 4th defendant filed a memo stating that he has no claim over the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the suit is false, frivolous and not tenable in law. The defendants specifically contended that suit property is a Inam land belonging to a Temple of Lord Desha Narayanaswamy. The father of defendants 1 and 2 was the Barvardar of the said land i.e. suit. In view of Inam abolition, the said property was re-granted to the father of defendants 1 and 2 i.e. Thimmadasappa by order dtd. 5/8/1982 in L.R.F.INA 74/79-80 and the grant certificate was also came to be issued and accordingly the name of Thimmadasappa was entered in the revenue records as per MR No.38/83-84 and he continued in possession of the said property. Thereafter, Thimmadasappa and his two sons i.e. defendants 1 and 2 got partitioned the said property through a registered partition deed dtd. 17/10/2005 and they are continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
6. They further contended that, the sale deed dtd. 17/5/1971 is pertaining to Sy.No.1/4 measuring 1 acre 18 1/4 guntas of Boodigere village purported to have been executed by said Thimmadasappa in favour of 3rd defendant was not acted upon. T
The principle of feeding the grant by estoppel allows a subsequent acquisition of title to validate an earlier transfer made by a person who lacked title at the time of the transfer, thereby protecti....
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate ownership or possession over the ancestral property, while defendants proved their title through documented evidence, leading to suit dismissal.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
Registered partition deed between brothers under Mohammedan law creates valid title; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts absent substantial question of law in second appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
