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.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

The present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009 passed in R.A.No.61/2008 by District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Haveri, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘first appellate Court’] and the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2008 passed in OS No.12/2004 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Hangal, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’], wherein the suit for declaration and injunction has been dismissed by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that property bearing Sy.No.314/B, plot No.20 measuring 11 guntas (TMC No.4487),[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’] originally belonged to one Hanamanthappa Rajappa Chikkannavar and it was part of property bearing Sy.No.314/1 which totally measured 7 acres 29 guntas. That out of the said property, an extent of 4 acres was converted to non agricultural purpose on 27.3.1981 and at that time, it was bearing Sy.No.314/1A, plot No.21 measuring 11 guntas. The suit property is described in para 2 of the plaint as Sy.No.314/B, plot No.20 measuring 11 guntas and given TMC No.4487. The boundaries have also been mentioned. That the suit property was sold by the original owners to defendant No.1 on 25.5.1981 for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- and the possession was handed over on the same day. That defendant No.1 vide registered Sale Deed dated 13.4.1983 sold the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,000/- to one Shyam Kalal and possession was also handed over on the said date, consequent to which, the name of Shyam Kalal was entered in the revenue records in respect of TMC No.4487 Plot No.20. That thereafter the said Shyam Kalal sold the suit property to the plaintiff for sale consideration vide registered Sale Deed dated 5.4.1989. That the plaintiff was also put in possession of the said property and the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the municipal records. That the plaintiff has also paid development charges in respect of the suit property.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the year 1994 as per the order of the Director of Land Records, KGP was done and said Sy.No.314/1A was give new No.314/B and in that survey number totally 32 plots were laid and plot No.21 i.e., RS No.314/1A was numbered as RS 314/1B, Plot No.20. That in view of the variation in the number, the plaintiff requested the legal representatives of the original owner to get the Rectification Deed executed since the name of defendant No.1 was appearing in the revenue records. Hence, it was agreed that the original owner should execute a Rectification Deed in favour of defendant No.1 and thereafter, defendant No.1 should execute the Rectification Deed in favour of Shyam Kalal and thereafter, Shaym Kalal in favour of the plaintiff. That accordingly, the Rectification Deed was executed by the legal representatives of the original owner in favour of defendant No.1 on 29.11.2003 and the Sale Deed dated 29.5.2009 in favour of defendant No.1 was corrected. It is the further case of plaintiff that defendant No.1 as per the agreement, did not execute any Rectification Deed in favour of Shyam Kalal, but in collusion, he executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 26.5.2004 and on the strength of the said Sale Deed, defendant No.2 interfered with the lawful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction.

5. Defendant No.1 entered appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. Further, he admitted the description of the suit property. The conversion of the suit property to non agricultural purpose on 27.3.1981 was also admitted, as