The court ruled that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish claims of fraud regarding registered property transactions, which were not substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2013 passed in RA No.7/2011 by the learned II Additional District Court, Chikmagalur (‘First Appellate Court’ for short), allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 passed in OS No.191/2005 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur (‘Trial Court’ for short), and setting aside the same.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant.

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

3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2003 from one Sri. Laxmana. After purchasing the said property, the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2003. It is stated that, the suit property was the joint family property of one Sri. Ramashetty, who in turn sold and conveyed the same in favour of one Sri. H.K.Payanna S/o Sri. Kenchashetty under a registered sale dated 17.02.1975. The said Payanna in turn sold the property in favour of one Sri. H.E.Laxmana under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1984. The said Laxmana had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that, earlier Sy.No.405 was measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, out of which, 1-08 acres of land was sold by the original khata holder Ramashetty and the remaining extent in the said Sy.No. was with the original khata holder. The entire documents pertaining to Sy.No. 405 measuring 1-08 acres is in the name of the plaintiff. Suring durast of the suit property, it was revealed that the suit property is in the possession of the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested for delivery of possession. But the same was refused by the defendant. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contented that, Sy.No. 405 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas was the property of one Halaga S/o Sidda, the grandfather of the defendant and the said property is the ancestral property of the defendant. The defendant and his ancestors are in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre 18 guntas of land in Sy.No. 405/1. It is contented that, the alleged sale transactions are fraudulent to cheat the defendant. It is also contented that, the boundaries shown in the plaint are incorrect. It is contented that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time and prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that the boundaries given to the suit schedule property are correct?

(2) Whether plaintiff proves that he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Laxmana for himself and on behalf of his minor children through Registered Sale deed dt: 12.6.2003 and acquired valid title over the suit property?

(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property ?

(4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs sought for?

(6) What order or decree?

6. The plainti