Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.426 OF 2014

BETWEEN:
SMT. A. VISHALAKSHI
S/O LATE AMBLI KOTRAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR.,
SRI. AMBLI YOGESH
S/O LATE AMBLI KOTRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.106, KOTTUR ROAD,
HARRAPPANAHALLI,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI. B.M. KARUNESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. SRIVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1 . SMT. Y. P. KOMALA
W/O SRI.G.MURALIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.143/12,
9TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE - 560 030.
2 . SRI. K. SUCHEENDRA REDDY
S/O N. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
3 . SMT. P.N MANJULA
W/O SRI.K.SUCHEENDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
4 . KUMARI. ASHWINI
D/O SRI. K. SUCHEENDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
5 . MASTER. MANOJ
S/O SRI. K. SUCHEENDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.5 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN
SMT.P.N.MANJULA,
THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.3, GROUND FLOOR,
20TH CROSS, KANAKANAGAR,
R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
6 . SRI.M.KRISHNA REDDY
S/O G.MUNISHAMI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
7 . SRI. K. L. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE. PATEL LAKSHMIA,
RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
(VIDE ORDER DATED 5/8/16 R7 DELETED)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, AND
SRI. A. N. GIRIJESHA, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED: 25/06/2019, APPEAL AGINST R2
TO R4 DISMISSED;
R6 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER
DATED: 05/08/16, R7 IS DELETED)

Petitioner Advocates:VISHWANATH R HEGDE ,Respondent Advocate: R B SADASIVAPPA &

The court affirmed that a plaintiff can establish ownership through a gift deed, and a subsequent purchaser cannot claim title from a seller who lacks ownership.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against decree - The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of ownership and possession of property - The plaintiff established ownership through a gift deed from her mother and prior sale deed - The 7th defendant's claim was rejected as he derived no title from the 1st defendant who had previously sold the property. (Paras 21-26)

(B) Order II Rule 2 - Bar on subsequent suits - The court held that the subsequent suit was maintainable as the cause of action was different from the earlier suit for injunction, thus not barred under Order II Rule 2. (Paras 23-26)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of property through a gift deed from her mother, who had previously acquired it via a sale deed. The 7th defendant claimed ownership through a later sale deed from the 1st defendant, who had no title to sell.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, establishing her ownership and possession of the property, dismissing the appeal of the 7th defendant.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the plaintiff's title, the necessity of the mother as a party, and whether the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff proved her title through valid documentation and possession, and the 7th defendant's claim was invalid as the 1st defendant had no title to sell.

Result: The appeal is dismissed.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.4021/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV-ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.10.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 16.10.2024

PRONOUNCED ON : 12.11.2024

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal filed by the appellant /defendant No.7 Under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the XXIV Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore, herein referred as trial court in OS.No.4021/2005 dated 22.11.2013 for having decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent.

2. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for appellant and counsel for the respondents.

3. The ranks of the parties before the trial court retained for the convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.85 of Bhoganahally village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, measuring 4 acres 25 guntas, hereinafter referred as civil property. The said property was acquired by the 1st defendant under the partition took place in OS.No.5093/1989 and all the documents were made in the name of the 1st defendant. It is further contended that the 1st defendant sold the schedule property to one Smt.R.Pillaguramma @ Guramma through his power of attorney holder K.L. Krishna Reddy - the 6th defendant on 25.08.1995. Later the name of the Pillaguramma was entered into revenue records. And it is further alleged that the said Pillaguramma gifted the schedule property to the plaintiff on 29.01.2004, and put her in physical possession. Later the revenue records were also entered in the name of the plaintiff as per T.R.No.2475/2003-04 dated 25.04.2004 and MR.No. 78/2003-2004, then the plaintiff become the absolute owner of the schedule property and she was enjoying the same.

5. The plaintiff further averred that on 23.12.2004, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant announcing to some people that he is owner of the property. Hence, plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant in O.S.No.410/2005 against the 1st defendant for permanent injunction. The 1st defendant appeared and filed written statement and stated that he has sold the schedule property to the 7th defendant as per the sale deed dated 22.12.2004. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have lost their right, title and interest and possession over the schedule property on 25.08.1995 itself, when he has sold the land to Pillaguramma, which is also binding on the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and they could not have sold the schedule property to the 7th defendant. The 5th defendant has also joined the sale deed dated 22.12.2004 as confirming party.

6. The plaintiff further stated that the plaintiff acquired the property through sale deed and gift deed. The right of the plaintiff is subsisting and valid. The 7th defendant do not acquired any title or interest over the schedule property and 5th defendant ought not have signed as confirming party. The plaintiff has also got issued legal notice on 23.04.2005 to the 7th defendant, where he has asserted the title, therefore plaintiff is entitled to be declared as absolute owner of the schedule property. The defendant may interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Hence, prayed for decree.

7 The defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 have filed common written statement by denying the plaint averments by admitting the fact the 1st defendant acquired the schedule property under the partition in OS.No.5093/1989, and there was family partition pursuant to the compromise decree, the 6th defendant obtained signature of the 1st defendant on some blank papers under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document