Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA
P. Krishnappa, S/o M. Poojappa – Appellant
Versus
K. Mannaji Rao, S/o D. Krishnoji Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2021 passed in O.S. No. No. 8388/2016 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the said judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for (1) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged possession of the suit schedule property, and (2) declaration that the sale deed dated 06.10.1989 and the gift deed dated 09.12.2015 are sham, invalid and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.
Brief facts.
Plaint averments
2. Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of House No. 56, House List Khata No. 107-163-4, Babusabpalya Village, Nanjappa Garden, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). The claim of the plaintiff is that he has purchased under a registered sale deed dated 15.11.2010 from the erstwhile owners through the GPA holder Subbappa (defendant No. 3). The title derived by the plaintiff is through partition deed of 30.11.1953 and the GPA dated 30.07.1982 executed in favour of Subbappa by the own
Unregistered GPAs and affidavits do not confer ownership or possessory rights in immovable property, and mere injunction is not maintainable when title is clouded by a prior registered sale deed.
General Power of Attorney ceases upon the death of the principal, invalidating any subsequent sale deeds executed without the consent of all necessary parties.
Presumption that possession goes with title applies to a case like this where neither party has been able to prove or establish possession, but one of the parties is able to show its title.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and proper legal action, and the need for plaintiffs to make clear and consistent pleadings to support their claims.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish their title, and failure to do so results in dismissal, regardless of the defendants' claims.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 – Execution of decree – Mutation entry in revenue records does not create title nor has any presumptive value on title, but only enables the....
(1) Sale – There is difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a contract for sale.(2) Part Performance – Unless transferee in instrument of agreement to sale is able to prove that ....
An unregistered possessory agreement does not confer rights to the property and cannot be enforced for possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
An agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights; lawful possession is required for injunction, and plaintiffs must seek title declaration against third parties.
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
