The validity of a registered sale deed substantiates ownership rights unless significantly rebutted by evidence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by defendant No.1, aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 04.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.22/2001 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short “the trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 10.12.2018 passed in R.A.No.46/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short “the First Appellate Court”).

2. The above suit in O.S.No.22/2001 was originally filed by Siddaramaiah, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 herein, seeking relief of declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff contended in the said suit that he purchased the suit schedule property from one Sannavaradanaika, his wife and sons in terms of registered sale deed dated 20.03.1979 and he was put in possession of the same. That he had grown tamarind trees and has been enjoying the schedule property, in exercise of his absolute ownership. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his wife and son came on record as legal representatives. It is contended that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and they were unnecessarily interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff.

3. On service of summons, the first defendant filed written statement contending that his father Sannavaradanaika, a native of Seegebagi village and the suit schedule property is ancestral property. He had raised loan from the deceased plaintiff Siddaramaiah against the security of land to an extent of 1 acre about 10 years ago and that, the said loan has been discharged, possession was handed over to the defendant No.1 and he continued in possession of the said property. The brother of defendant No.1 has executed relinquishment deed in his favour on 06.07.2000 and as such, he had become absolute owner of the said property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendant No.2 in his written statement admitted that suit schedule property measures 27 guntas and not 1 acre. That the ownership and possession of the property belong to Sannavaradanaika, who had sold the same in favour of the original plaintiff and had admitted the case of the plaintiff.

5. Defendant No.4 filed written statement contending that she is in possession to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Sy.No.4/1A4 which included kharab land and that all the revenue records stand in her name. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, framed the following issues for its consideration:

1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the defendants interfered with the suit schedule property as alleged in para-3 of the plaint?

4. Whether the defendants prove this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

7. What order or Decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

1. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that she is the owner in possession of S.No.4/1A4 and the disputed tamarind trees are situated in her land?

7. The plaintiff No.2 got himself examined as P.W.1 and e