AND

DECREE

DATED

17.03.2015 PASSED IN R.A. NO.42/2012 ON THE FILE OF

THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,

CHITRADURGA,

DISMISSING

APPEAL

AND

CONFIRMING

JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

12.10.2012 PASSED IN O.S. NO.20/2002 ON THE FILE OF

THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA.

3

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR JUDGMENT ON 08.09.2022, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful

defendant

who

has

questioned

concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts

below wherein both the Courts have declared plaintiff

as the owner of the suit schedule property and have

further declared that the sale deed dated 16.12.1989

is

a

fraudulent

and

a

void

document

and

consequently,

defendant

is

directed

to

deliver

possession of the suit schedule property in favour of

the plaintiff.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

Plaintiff instituted a suit for possession.

Plaintiff also sought the relief of declaration claiming

4

that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule

property. Plaintiff specifically contended that he has

acquired the property vide indenture of deed dated

20.10.1970. Plaintiff specifically pleaded that owing

to his health problems he was compelled to migrate to

Nannivala from Bommakkanahalli village. Plaintiff

claimed that suit land was given to the husband of

defendant who readily agreed to cultivate the land by

giving half share in the agriculture yield to the

plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed that when defendant

was called upon to handover possession, she declined

on the premise that she is the owner of the suit

schedule property. Plaintiff immediately rushed to the

revenue office and on enquiry found that defendant

has concocted a fraudulent document styled as sale

deed dated 16.12.1989. Plaintiff alleged that this sale

deed is created by false personation and therefore,

5

questioned the sale deed to declare it as a void

document.

3(a) Defendant on receipt of summons tendered

appearance and stoutly denied the entire averments

made in the plaint. Though defendant admitted

plaintiff's title, however, claimed that after the death

of her husband she continued to cultivate the land in

question and therefore, she purchased the suit land

under

registered

sale

deed

dated

16.12.1989.

Therefore, she claimed to be the absolute owner and

prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant also

claimed that the suit is barred by limitation.

3(b) Plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined

himself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2

and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to

P10, while defendant led evidence through her GPA

who is examined as D.W.1 and adduced rebuttal

documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to 9.

6

3(c) Pending consideration of the suit, plaintiff

filed an application seeking an expert's opinion in

regard to the disputed and admitted signatures found

on the alleged sale deed. The said application was

allowed and the matter was referred to handwriting

expert. The handwriting expert has submitted her

report which is marked at Exs.C1 to C6 and the

handwriting expert is examined as C.W.1. Defendant

has not chosen to cross examine the handwriting

expert and objections are filed to the report. The Trial

Court having assessed the oral and documentary

evidence as well as the report of the handwriting

expert has come to the conclusion that the alleged

sale deed set up by defendant vide Ex.D2 is a

fraudulent document and consequently, proceeded to

declare the said sale deed as void. The Trial Court

having

examined

the

report

of

the

Court

Commissioner and other clinching evidence led by

7

plaintiff has come to the conclusion that the sale deed

is a created document and therefore, referring to the

Commissioner's report, the Trial Court has come to

the conclusion that the sale deed is created by a false

personation