Rectification deeds require the consent of all legal heirs to be enforceable, and lack of such consent renders the deed void.

JUDGMENT :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

This appeal is preferred by defendants 1 to 5, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05^th March, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.65 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 13^th June, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.168 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the land bearing Survey No.110/1 of Dantaramakki Village, Chikkamagaluru District measuring to an extent of 34 guntas is described as 'B' Schedule property. Plaintiffs are the grandchildren of late Doddappegowda. The said Doddappegowda acquired the schedule property by way of succession. It is also stated that the said Doddappegowda had five children namely, 1) Puttegowda-defendant No.6 (father of the plaintiff No.1), 2) Chikkanna, 3) Sannappaiahanna (his whereabouts are not known to parties), 4) Kenchamma, and 5) Papanna. On 09^th March, 1965, Doddappegowda and his son Puttegowda-defendant No.6 have executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of one D.R. Rangegowda to an extent of 29 guntas of land in Survey No.128 and the remaining four children of Doddappegowda were not parties to the said registered Sale Deed. Therefore, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the said registered Sale Deed dated 09^th March, 1965 is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they have not claimed right over 29 guntas of land in Survey No.128 however, the defendant No.1 induced the defendant No.6-Puttegowda to execute a Rectification Deed dated 11^th April, 2002 and rectified the survey number as Survey No.110/1 with an intention to grab the schedule property.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the siblings of the defendant No.6 were not parties to the said Rectification Deed dated 11^th April, 2002. It is also averred in the plaint that, there was a partition in the family of the defendant No.1 on 03^rd December, 1999 and in the said partition, the land bearing Survey No.110 was not included. It is also contended that the rectification deed was made pursuant to the Partition Deed dated 02^nd December, 1999 and therefore, the execution of the rectification deed is illegal and accordingly, sought for cancellation of the same.

5. The plaint averments further reveals that the defendant No.1 on behalf of the defendants 2 to 4 through Power of Attorney has sold the 'B' schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5 and the defendant No.5 is the brother's daughter of the defendant No.1. Hence, plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.168 of 2007, seeking to declare that the Rectification Deed dated 11^th April, 2002 and the registered Sale Deed dated 31^st December, 2003 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

6. After service of notice, defendants 1 to 5 entered appearance and defendant No.1 categorically denied the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 to 5 that the plaintiffs have filed suit at the instigation of defendants 6 to 8,