A registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity, and the burden to challenge it lies on the opposing party, reinforcing the principle of prior conveyance primacy.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

This appeal by the defendants seeks to call in question the judgment & decree dated 11.02.2022 whereby, respondent-plaintiff’s title suit in O.S.No.448/2015 has been favoured. The decree reads as under:

“The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.

It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner, in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit.

The defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

The sale deed dated:19.08.2015 (Ex.D.10) executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is not binding upon plaintiff.

The revenue entries of suit schedule property effected on the basis of sale deed 19.08.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 shall be cancelled and that entry shall be made in name of plaintiff.”

II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS PUT FORTH BY THE PARTIES:

(a) Respondent (hereafter ‘plaintiff’) had filed the subject suit inter alia for a decree of declaration & injunction. Suit land admeasures 01A-09G in Sy.No.7/1 at Tumakuru, Amanikere, Kasaba Hobli. He bought the same from Smt.Sabira Banu W/o Khazi Ghulam Mohiddin & their son T.K.Inayatulla vide registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1967. Pursuant to said conveyance, the entries in the Revenue Records were mutated in favour of the plaintiff. After the death of Mr.Gaarerangaiah, the property devolved upon the plaintiff and he continues to be in its possession.

(b) There were certain RTS proceedings taken up by the plaintiff side to get restoration of name to the said property after the demise of his father Mr.Gaarerangaiah, that went adverse to his interest vide order dated 21.07.2014 made by the Assistant Commissioner which had cancelled Tahasildar’s order dated 27.11.2007. The name of Mr.Gaarerangaiah had appeared in column No.12 of RTC whereas in column No.10, names of Khazi Mohammed Abeed and Khazi Iqbal Ahmed had appeared vide M.R..No.15/2008-09 dated 3.10.2008. All this was made behind the back of plaintiff, on the basis of a particular partition. On the basis of this entry, when plaintiff’s possession of land was threatened by the defendants and that lead to the institution of subject suit. (c) Defendants entered appearance through their advocates and resisted the suit by filing the Written Statement contending that the property is a khazi land of ancestors of 1st defendant under whom it ultimately fell into the hands of 1st defendant; the subject sale deed of 1967 is a bogus document obtained behind the back and it did not create any interest in favour of Mr.Gaarerangaiah; therefore, the question of said property falling into the hands of plaintiff by succession (“pavati vaarasu Hakku”)

would not arise.

(d) There were tenancy proceedings wherein occupancy was claimed by Mr.Ramaiah and Mr.Hanumaiah against the 1st defendant; the Tribunal had granted occupancy vide order dated 16.01.1988; this was challenged by the 1st defendant in W.P.No.15090/1993 and the Land Tribunal order having been set at naught, vide judgment dated 9.4.1999, matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.11.2006 had negatived their claim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; claimants’ W.P.No.18192/2007 having been favoured by a learned Single of this Court in W.P.No.2211/2000, matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and the same is registered as INA(A)1/2013-14 which is still pending.

(e) There were mutation proceedings in RRT(A)(T)492/2015-16 challenging the entry made in favour of Doddaiah and others, sons of late Hanumaiah.

The Assistant Commissioner having examined the matter passed the order dated 29.7.2015 in favour of 1st defendant. He sold the suit property in favour of 2nd defendant by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.08.2015 and the same is valid & effective; pursuant to said sale deed, entries have been mutated in t