Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, J, RAJESH RAI K
Karnataka State Financial Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Venkataraman Radhakrishnan, S/o Late N. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's ownership claim and mortgage invalidity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against the trial court's findings. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's observations on mortgage validity. (Para 19 , 22) |
| 4. final decision and reasoning on appeal dismissal. (Para 25 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
The defendant No.6 is before this Court in this appeal, assailing the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009, passed in O.S.No.1024/2002 on the file of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short).
2. We have heard Shri. Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. Nataraju T, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted O.S.No.1024/2002 for declaration that the mortgage created by defendant No.5/respondent No.6 herein- Jaswinder Singh in respect of defendant No.6 - Karnataka State Financial Corporation ('KSFC' for short) is invalid and not binding upon him and the schedule prop
A bona fide purchaser's rights prevail against an improperly created mortgage lacking necessary permissions, and res judicata does not bar a subsequent suit seeking different relief.
Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that a suit to enforce payment of money secured by mortgage can be filed within 12 years, when the money sued for becomes due.
The court held that a sale deed remains valid despite non-payment of consideration, affirming ownership rests with the purchaser as per registered transaction under the Transfer of Property Act.
A mortgage created in violation of the terms of a prior mortgage is voidable, and the first charge holder's rights must be protected against subsequent encumbrances.
A mortgage created in violation of the terms of a prior mortgage is void in law, and the court has jurisdiction to declare such mortgages void to prevent serious injury to the first charge holder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appellate courts should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court unless it has been shown to be arbitrary, capricious,....
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
