ON

08.02.2022,

COMING

ON

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are

as follows:

On

15.02.1982,

R.Chennaveeramma

and

R.Bhagirathamma4daughters of C.Rudraiah filed a suit

seeking for a decree of injunction to restrain Y.Chikkanna

from interfering with their possession over the house

4

property bearing Door No.42, situated at N.G.O9s Colony,

Rajendra Nagar, Mysuru.

It was stated that the suit house property had been

allotted to their father Rudraiah on 01.02.1967 and all the

municipal records stood in his name. It was stated that

Rudraiah had passed away on 06.01.1982 and during his

lifetime, he had executed a registered Will dated

20.11.1973 (registered on 23.11.1973) bequeathing the

house in their favour and they had thus succeeded to the

property. They stated that they were in continuous

possession and enjoyment of the house property and as

the defendant was contending that he had purchased the

suit property and had come near the suit property and

tried to interfere with their possession, they were

constrained to file the suit.

4.

This suit was resisted by Chikkanna stating that

Rudraiah had been allotted with the site by the Karnataka

Housing Board under a Hire-Purchase Agreement, but he

5

was not in a position to pay the installments and in

addition, he had decided to leave Mysuru and return to

his native place and he had therefore decided to sell the

suit house in favour of the defendant. He stated that

Rudraiah had executed a sale deed on 03.05.1979 in his

favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,000/-.

5.

According to him, as per the terms of the sale deed,

he had paid a sum of Rs.3,612=77 to the Karnataka

Housing Board on behalf of Rudraiah, which was the

entire balance due to the Board. He stated that he had

also paid a sum of Rs.6,800/- to Rudraiah in the presence

of the witnesses and Rudraiah had agreed to receive the

balance consideration at the time of the registration of

the sale deed.

6.

Chikkanna, however, stated that since Rudraiah

failed to ensure registration of the sale deed, he had

presented the document for registration, but the Sub-

Registrarhad refused to register the sale deed and he was

6

therefore constrained to prefer an appeal to the District

Registrar, who by an order dated 23.06.1981, directed

the registration of the said sale deed and accordingly, the

sale deed was registered on 27.06.1981.

7.

Chikkanna also stated that thereafter, he had issued

a legal notice on 09.08.1981 to Rudraiah calling upon him

to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,587=23

and to hand-over the vacant possession to him andto

secure the necessary documents from the Karnataka

Housing Board. He stated that after obtaining the sale

deed, he had got the Khata registered in his name, and

he was entitled to be in possession of the house property.

8.

He stated that Rudraiah had died on 06.01.1982 and

that his daughters who were not residing with him in the

suit house, subsequently, in connivance with Rudraiah9s

son, began to stake a claim that they were the legatees

under the registered Will dated 20.11.1973 (registered on

23.11.1973). Chikkanna stated that he was not admitting

7

the genuineness, execution and validity of the Will and

the plaintiffs were put to strict proof of the same. It was

also stated that even if the Will was duly proved, the

plaintiffs could not have derived any title under the will,

since Rudraiah had himself sold the property during his

lifetime. He also stated that in the light of a registered

deed of conveyance executed in his favour, the execution

of the Will or the payment of taxes was of no

consequence.

9.

It was also stated that after the Khata was

registered in his name, he had applied to the Karnataka

Housing Board for execution of the requisite documents in

his favour and the said claim was still pending and he had

also learnt that the plaintiffs had approached this Court

by way of a writ petition