Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30902
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. Hemalekha, J
Subbamma – Appellant
Versus
Subramanyappa – Respondent
RSA No. 969 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.S. Shashi Bhushan
For the Respondents: S. Dayamani
A vendor cannot convey a better title than what they possess; where a reconveyance deed explicitly reserves a specific portion of land, that retention prevails, and subsequent deeds attempting to convey the entire original extent are legally ineffective to pass title to the reserved portion.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for permanent injunction - Determination of possession - Once the plaintiff proves title and specific retention of a portion of land in a reconveyance deed, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove their lawful possession over that specific extent. (Paras 10, 14)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Vendor cannot convey a better title than what he possesses - Deed of rectification cannot enlarge the extent of land originally conveyed if the vendor lacked the underlying title to the additional portion. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The suit originated as a dispute over 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/3, claimed by the plaintiffs as part of the original holding of their predecessor, which was allegedly retained during a reconveyance in 1975. The defendants contended they purchased the entire property based on a sale deed and subsequent rectification deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, focusing on physical possession markers, while the appellate court reversed the decision, emphasizing the documentary evidence of the retained extent.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the specific recitals in the reconveyance deed (Ex.P7) clearly established that 8 guntas were retained by the plaintiffs' predecessor. Consequently, the defendants' vendor could only pass title to the extent she possessed, and any attempt to expand this via a rectification deed was legally unsustainable. The appellate court’s re-appreciation of title-based possession was found correct and not perverse.
Issues: 1. Whether the findings of the first appellate court regarding possession were perverse due to alleged misreading of the Commissioner's report. 2. Whether the defendants acquired valid title to the entire extent including the disputed 8 guntas through the sale deed and rectification deed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for bare injunction, while title cannot substitute for proof of possession, where the documentation (reconveyance deed) explicitly specifies retention of a portion of land, the burden of proving lawful possession over that specific portion shifts to the party claiming otherwise, especially when the rival title claims are based on a vendor who lacks capacity to convey the disputed area.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of the First Appellate Court confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for regular second appeal regarding perversity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of facts and rival contentions regarding land title. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. appreciation of evidence, retention of property, and nemo dat quod non habet principle. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.80/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT, DEVANAHALLI REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.38/1991 BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL THROUGH OUT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Court on 18.07.2016 framed the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is perverse in misreading the Commissioner's report, while opining contrary to the findings of the trial Court with regard to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?”
2. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent have been heard on the substantial question of law framed by this Court.
3. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.80/2006, whereby the judgment of dismissal passed in O.S.No.38/1991 by the Trial Court came to be reversed and the suit for permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
Brief facts:
4. The suit is one for permanent injunction in respect of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/3 out of total extent of about 1 acre 22 guntas. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to Hanumanthrayappa, who had two children, Thammanna and Thangamma. Thammanna's wife is Gowramma, who is plaintiff No.1 and his son is Subramanyappa, who is plaintiff No.2. Thangamma's daughter is Muni Akkayyamma. Thammanna retained 8 guntas and conveyed the remaining extent to Muni Akkayyamma under reconveyance dated 07.05.1975. The plaintiffs claim possession over the retained portion.
5. The defendants contended that the entire property devolved through Thangamma and Muni Akkayyamma and as per Ex.D1 dated 01.03.1979, Muni Akkayyamma sold the property to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and further by a rectification deed dated 06.01.1993, clarifies the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The defendants claim continuous possession of the entire extent including the suit property.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that:
i. The First Appellate Court has misread the Commissioner's report.
ii. The electric meter and the pump house stands in the name of Muni Akkayyamma supporting defendants' possession.
iii. It is submitted that the Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral evidence of PW1, CW1 and documentary evidence Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Commissioner’s report, has rightly held that the plaintiffs were not in possession.
iv. The First Appellant Court erroneously relied upon Ex.P6 and ExP7 instead of examining actual possession and that the substantial question of law framed by this Court needs to be answered in favour of the appellants.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that:
i. By way of Ex.P6, Muni Akkayyamma had sold 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.79/3 to Thammanna, the husband of plaintiff No.1.
ii. By way of reconveyance under Ex.P7, the said Thammanna sold only 1 acre 14 guntas to Muni Akkayyamma and retained 8 guntas as is evident from the recitals in Ex.P7.
iii. It is contended that the title for 8 guntas flows in favour of the plaintiffs and the possession follows title. It is submitted that Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 cannot confirm a right in favour of Muni Akkayyamma to sell 1 ac
