Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23941
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. V SRISHANANDA, J
SMT BHAGYA W/O LATE B.T. THAMMANNA, YADUKUMAR S/O. LATE B.T. THAMMANNA, SMT B.T. SHOBA D/O LATE B.T. THAMMANNA, MADHU KUMAR S/O LATE B.T. THAMMANNA – Appellant
Versus
P VIJAYA KUMAR S/O.LATE H V PAPANNA, JAGADEESHA S/O NARASEGOWDA, SHIVANNA S/O MARISINGAIAH – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2023 (INJ) | REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2023 (INJ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE
The validity of claims based on unregistered sale deeds is insufficient to establish rightful possession, leading to dismissal of the plaintiff's appeals.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 100 and 96 - A suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiffs dismissed the suit after rule against unregistered sale deeds - The Court held that unregistered deeds cannot form a basis of rightful possession, and legal representatives failing to exercise independent rights renders the case unsustainable regarding the suit property. (Paras 2-4, 39)
(B) The Court also noted the importance of registration and possession over property regarding ousting the claimant's right in favor of defendants who established possession via unregistered sale deeds. (Paras 23-38)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership through partition yet failed to uphold possession against defendants claiming rights via unregistered deeds, affecting the outcome of their suit.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's case indicating unregistered documents do not support legal claims effectively.
Issues: The primary issue was the legitimacy of unregistered sale deeds in proving ownership and right to possession of property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that unregistered sale deeds adversely affect claimed possession and previous legal actions taken were insufficient to establish a right against the defendants.
Result: Appeals are meritless and hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim ownership via partition. (Para 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. court observes the implications of possession based on unregistered deeds. (Para 12 , 19 , 25) |
| 3. final judgment clarified regarding dismissal based on evidence presented. (Para 18 , 22 , 36) |
| 4. arguments against the validity of unregistered deeds. (Para 20 , 21 , 39) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P. Mahesha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in both these appeals challenging the dismissal of their suit and decreeing the counterclaim made by the defendants granting in order of permanent injunction.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under:
Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.1132/2011 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'.)
SCHEDULE
The property bearing No.1510, measuring East to West : 30 Feet and North to South : 40 feet, total 1200 sq.ft., situated at Bhogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, carved out of Sy.No.199, measuring 33.08 guntas, bounded on :
East by : Site bearing No.1511,
West by : Site bearing No.1509,
North by : Site bearing No.1516,
South by : Road.
4. Plaintiffs claim that there was a registered partition deed registered on 07.11.2001 whereby the original plaintiff acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the suit property bearing Sy.No.199 to an extent of 33.08 guntas situated Bhogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk.
5. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that he formed the sites in the said land and one site bearing No.1510 is the subject matter of the present suit.
6. Plaintiff contended that he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of partition effecting change of the khata and other revenue documents into his name and has paid up to date taxes to the Government.
7. Plaintiff also contended that in the year 2002, plaintiff had filed a suit against one Akkamma and Saroja in O.S. No.987/2002 for relief of permanent injunction which on contest, came to be decreed on 05.10.2007.
8. In respect of the other persons namely Shanthalakshmi, Savithri, Saroja, the plaintiff filed one more suit in O.S. No.184/2006 which also got decreed on contest.
9. It is further contended that the defendants in the suit have no right, title or interest in respect of suit property and started interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property whereby the suit came to be filed.
10. Pursuant to the suit summons, first defendant appeared before the Court and filed detailed written statement contending that father of the plaintiffs namely Late Bandi Gowda and his brothers namely D. Lingappa, Chikkanna and Giddanna's son by name Narasimha and Narayana have sold the suit property to third defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,100/- through an unregistered sale deed dated 19.02.1982 and put the third defendant in possession of the suit property.
11. Plaintiff was an attesting witness to the said sale deed and MUDA has issued notice to third defendant for payment of the penalty in respect of the suit property, but third defendant failed to make the penalty amount to the MUDA due to financial constraints. Third defendant continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till 01.08.1994 and third defendant sold the suit property to second defendant through another unregistered sale deed dated 01.08.1994 and put the second defendant into possession of the suit property.
12. Second defendant constructed an AC sheet house in suit property, but he could not pay the penalty to MUDA. As such, second defendant again sold the suit property to the first defendant by way of yet another unregistered Sale Deed dated 05.03.2004 and from that date, he is in possession of the suit property and he has put up the compound wall on the front side of suit property and fixed a gate.
13. Fi
