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.

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 owners. It is averred that after purchase, katha is mutated, small house has been constructed, taxes have been paid and the plaintiff is in peaceful possession. The defendants tried to trespass into the suit property and hence he sued for perpetual injunction and declaration.

Written statement averments.

Written statement of defendant No. 1.

3. Defendant No. 1 claimed that he has purchased the suit property from the original owner Anjanappa under the sale deed dated 06.10.1989 and is in continuous possession since 1989, houses constructed and taxes have been paid. Pursuant to the sale deed in his favour, under the gift deed dated 09.12.2015, he has gifted the suit property to his son-defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has manipulated the documents and cannot claim any right under the alleged GPA holder to have executed a sale deed in his favour.

Written statement of defendant No. 2.

4. It is averred that the property originally belonged to Anjanappa and his children, who formed a layout and defendant No. 1, who is his father, purchased under the sale deed of the year 1989. The tax records stand in his name after the gift deed executed in his favour in the year 2015, denied the plaintiff's ownership/possession.

Written statement of defendant No. 3.

5. Defendant No. 3 is the GPA Holder and the plaintiff's vendor, supported the plaintiff's title and possession and confirmed the GPA in his favour executed by the original owners in the year 1982 and the subsequent sale deed of the year 2010 in favour of the plaintiff. It is averred that defendant No. 1 created a sham sale deed of the year 1989 and sought to decree the suit of the plaintiff.

6. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff's title is under cloud, since the earlier registered sale deed of the year 1989 referred, exist and that the plaintiff has not sought relief of declaration of title and possession, but only an injunction and for invalidation of the defendant's sale deed. The trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anathulla Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and Others, [(2008) 4 SCC 594] (Anathula) to hold that when the title is under cloud and the plaintiff is out of possession, remedy is sought for declaration and possession, not a bare injunction. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff was not in possession, rather defendant No. 1 was in possession since 1989 and later defendant No. 2 through a gift deed in the year 2015. The trial