In property disputes, a registered title supersedes unperformed agreements, protecting the rights of bona fide purchasers against prior contracts.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2012 passed in R.A.No.6/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-3, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and also the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.27/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. Appellant was defendant No.3, respondent No.1 was plaintiff and other respondents were the other defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was originally belonged to Sri. C. Timmarayappa i.e., defendant No.1. The name of the first defendant was entered in the revenue records and he being the Khatedar, was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Defendant No.1 sold the said land to defendant No.2 through a registered deed of sale dated 30.12.1990. Defendant No.2, having purchased the said land from defendant No.1, got her name mutated in the revenue records as per MR No.7/1990-1991. Defendant No.2 put in possession of the said land and she is in actual cultivation of the land and the pahani is transferred in her name.

4. The second defendant was in possession before the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant No.2 has executed a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1995 in favour of the plaintiff. The said document was referred to the District Registrar as per Section 45A of the KARNATAKA STAMP ACT . It is contended that defendant No.2 delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequent to the acquisition, the land was transferred in the name of the plaintiff as per MR No.27/1994-95. It is contended that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land since the date of purchase.

5. It is contended that the third defendant approached the village Accountant seeking Mutation in his name in the revenue records. Upon learning about the attempts of defendant No.3, the plaintiff inquired and came to know that defendant No.1 and his wife had entered into an agreement of sale dated 07.10.1988 with defendant No.3 and the suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 12.07.1994 in O.S.No.229/1992. The plaintiff immediately applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.229/1992.

6. It is contended that the plaintiff was not aware of any agreement executed between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. It is contended that the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and it is contended that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.229/1992 is not binding on the plaintiff and the agreement of sale dated 07.10.1988 has been created by defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 by colluding with each other with a malafide intention.

7. It is contended that the sale agreement dated 07.10.1988 is fabricated and it is contended that the no consideration amount was passed between defendants No.1 and 3. Hence, it is contended that subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.229/1992, defendant No.3 filed an execution petition in EP No.16/1995 and obtained a sale deed from the hands of the Court conveying the suit schedule property. It is contended that as of the date of the execution of the registered sale deed by the ex