Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25524

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Geetha K.B., J
Gadepa – Appellant
Versus
Hampamma – Respondent
RSA No. 5098 of 2010

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.H. Mittalkod
For the Respondents: K.L. Patil, Sourabh Sondur

A sale of immovable property is void if it lacks consideration, as payment of price is a mandatory requirement under the law. Additionally, a plea of adverse possession requires the claimant to admit the true owner's title and prove hostile, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Sale of immovable property - Essentiality of consideration - A sale deed executed without payment of price is not a sale in the eyes of law and is void - Such a document is a sham and does not confer title. (Paras 29, 30, 32, 36)

(B) Adverse Possession - Requirements - Plea of adverse possession must be based on proper pleadings and evidence - It is a settled principle that a person claiming title by adverse possession must first admit the ownership of the true owner - Inconsistent pleas of ownership and adverse possession cannot be maintained simultaneously. (Paras 42, 45, 47, 49)

(C) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Abatement - Partial abatement of an appeal against one respondent does not necessarily lead to abatement in toto - The test is whether the absence of the legal representative of the deceased respondent prevents the court from hearing the appeal or leads to contradictory decrees. (Paras 24, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The dispute concerns the ownership of agricultural land. The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, relying on a registered partition deed. The defendants contested the claim, asserting ownership through a prior sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, while the first appellate court decreed it, holding the sale deed relied upon by the defendants to be a sham transaction.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deed relied upon by the defendants was void for want of consideration, as no price was paid or agreed upon. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to establish the plea of adverse possession due to lack of specific pleadings and evidence, and the failure to admit the title of the true owner.

Issues: Whether the sale deed was a valid transfer of ownership; whether the plaintiff perfected title by adverse possession; and whether the appeal abated in its entirety due to the death of one respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: A document described as a sale deed is void if it lacks the essential element of consideration as defined under the law. Furthermore, a claim of adverse possession requires the claimant to unequivocally admit the title of the true owner and prove hostile, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and history of the disputed property title. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. arguments regarding substantial questions of law and adverse possession. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. effect of total vs partial abatement of appeal against a respondent. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. essential requirements of a valid sale deed under section 54 tp act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. requirements for proving title by adverse possession. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
6. consolidation of findings and dismissal of appeal. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC., IS PRAYING TO THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 30-11-2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.08/1999 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT BELLARY, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED: 27-02-1999 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.52/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BELLARY, BE KINDLY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN O.S. NO. 52/1993, WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard arguments of learned counsel for respondents Sri.Sourabh Sondur and reply arguments of learned counsel for appellant Sri S.H.Mittalkod.

2. This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. paying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 passed in R.A.No.8/1999 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Bellary and to confirm the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1999 OS No. 52/1993 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bellary.

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before Trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit before Trial Court paying for the relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner in possession of suit ‘B’ schedule property; for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2, her husband or persons claiming through her from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.

5. The case of plaintiff before Trial Court in nutshell is that one Dharmasagarada Doddappa was original propositus having three sons i.e. Dodda Pampanna, Sanna Pampanna and Doddappa. Sanna Pampanna has 5 sons and 3 daughters. Doddappa has got only 1 daughter i.e. plaintiff-Hampamma. Dodda Pampanna has a son and daughter. His son is defendant No.1-Gadeppa and his daughter is not party to the suit. It is the contention of plaintiff that in the registered family partition that has taken place on 14.05.1957, suit schedule ‘B’ property bearing Sy.No.113 measuring 8 acres 84 cents and other two agricultural properties bearing Sy.Nos.114A measuring 4 acres 32 cents and Sy.No.167 measuring 1 acre 70 cents and a house property were allotted to the share of father of plaintiff and some other properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.1 and also to father-in-law of defendant No.2-Sanna Pampanna. It is her contention that Sanna Pampanna was residing in her wife's family at Kolur and hence, properties at Kolur were allotted to his share and thus, no house property was allotted to him. During lifetime of her father, he was not keeping good health and hence, mother of plaintiff was looking after the suit schedule property and other two properties which were fallen to the share of plaintiff’s father and was paying taxes to it. Said Sy.No.113 measuring 8 acres 84 cents is the suit ‘B’ schedule property. Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 was in force from 1932 to 1953 in the area in which the suit schedule property is situated. Said Act came into force during 1938 and according to it, money-lenders were not permitted to impose interest more than 5-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25524

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAGeetha K.B., JGadepa – AppellantVersusHampamma – RespondentRSA No. 5098 of 2010

Cases Referred (4)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Geetha K.B., J
Gadepa – Appellant
Versus
Hampamma – Respondent
RSA No. 5098 of 2010