1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
RSA NO.3065 OF 2006 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B NAGAPPA
S/O BORE GOWDA
(SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S)
1(a) SMT.GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI B NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
1(b) SRI M.N.BALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE SRI B NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
1(c) SMT.M.N.BHARATHI,
D/O LATE SRI B NAGAPPA,
W/O SRI GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT HIRISAVE TOWN,
BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL,
HIRISAVE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 124.
1 (d) SMT, DEVEERAMMA
D/O LATE SRI B. NAGAPPA,
W/O LATE SRI UDAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE
BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI,
HALISANDRA POST,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
2
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 802.
1.(e) SRI M.N. MUKUNDA
S/O LATE SRI B. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS.1 (A), 1(B) & (E)
ARE R/AT MADALAGERE VILLAGE
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 124.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA
(SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S)
1(a) SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT THOTIKOPPALU VILLAGE
HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 124.
1(b) SMT. AMMAYAMMA
D/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA
W/O SRI PAPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT GUNASHETTAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
1(c) SMT. SHARADAMMA,
D/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA,
W/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3
R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 131.
1(d) SMT. YASHODAMMA
D/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA
W/O LATE SRI RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT THOTI VILLAGE
BILIGEHALLI POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 124.
1(e) SRI MAHESH
S/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT THOTIKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 124.
(CORRECTED AS PER THE ORDER DATED:26.2.2021)
1(f) SRI KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT THOTIKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 124.
1(g) SMT. THANGYAMMA,
D/O LATE SRI T.B. LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT THOTI VILLAGE
BILIGEHALLI POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 124.
2. SRI M. GANGAPPA,
S/O SRI MUDDEGOWDA,
4
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
WRITER
R/O PARNALA POST
UDAKAMANDALA, OOTY
NEELAGIRI DISTRICT.
R2 IS DECEASED
STEPS TO LRS OF R2 ARE DISPENSED
WITH V/O DATED 20.11.2008.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER DATED: 20.11.2008).
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS AZRA J DUNDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A-G)
V/O/DT: 20.11.2008 STEPS IN R/O DEED R2 IS D/W )
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 23.8.2006 PASSED
IN R.A.NO.143/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.),
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
DISMISSING
THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 8.7.1999 PASSED IN OS.NO.385/1988
ON
THE
FILE
OF
THE
CIVIL
JUDGE
(JR.DN.),
CHANNARAYAPATNA.
THIS
APPEAL
COMING
ON
FOR
FURTHER
ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the respondents.
2. This
appeal is by the defendants in
O.S.385/1988 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.),
Channarayapatna. The suit is filed for the relief of
5
rectification of the sale deed dated 01.07.1976 and
declaration of title and in the alternative, for possession
of the suit schedule property.
3. The suit property is the property bearing
Sy.No.116/2 in Madalagari Village, Channarayapatana
Taluk. The Plaintiff claims that the property measuring 1
acre and 10 guntas is purchased by the plaintiff on
01.07.1976. It is urged that, though in the sale deed
dated 01.07.1976, the property number is mentioned as
Sy. No.116/3, the property purchased in fact is Sy.
No.116/2, not Sy. No.116/3. It is claimed that the
plaintiff has purchased the property from Gangappa s/o
Muddegowda. Plaintiff would contend that the property
was allotted to Muddegowda in the partition of 1937.
Thus Gangappa who acquired the title from Muddegouda
could have sold only Sy. No.116/2 and not 116/3. The
property sold is Sy.no.116/2 and the same is wrongly
mentioned as Sy. No.116/3 in the sale deed is the
submission on behalf of the plaintiff.
6
4. The 1st defendant contested the claim of the
plaintiff. The 1st defendant contends that he is the
owner of the property based on registered sale deeds
dated 25.06.1965 and 24.08.1968. 1st defendant claims
to have purchased certain properties including the suit
property under the aforementioned sale deeds from his
vendor
Chikka
Boregowda.
According
to
the
1stdefendant, the suit property is allotted to the share of
Chikka Boregowda in the partition of 1937. It is urged
by the 1st defendant that since he is the exclusive owner
of the suit property, in terms of registered sale deeds
dated 25.06.1965 and 24.08.1968, the plaintiff who is
claiming
title
under
registered
sale
deed
dated
01.07.1976 has no title over the suit property. It is
urged that the title deeds of the 1st defendant are
anterior to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus
it is contended that the plaintiff could not have
purchased the suit property in 1976 from the 2nd
defendant
i.e.Gangapa
s/o
Muddegowda,
as
the
property is already purchased by the 1stdefendant in
1965.
7
5.
The trial Court has held that the vendor of
the 1stdefendant did not have title over 3 acres and 9
guntas which the 1stdefendant claimed under two
registered sale deeds referred to above. The trial Court
has concluded that the 1stdefendant has not established
his title over the suit property and it has concluded that
the 1stdefendant has encroached upon 16 guntas of the
suit land. The basis for finding on encroachment is the
report of the Court Commissioner. It is forthcoming
from the records that the report is not formally marked.
However, reliance is placed by the Trial Court on the
report of the court commissioner as there was no
objection to the said report by either of the parties
before it.
6. According to the trial Court, the report would
reveal that 16 guntas in the suit land are encroached on
by the defendant. The trial Court has granted the decree
for declaration of title and decree for possession of 16
guntas of land. The trial Court has also concluded that
the property sold by the vendor of the plaintiff is Sy.
8
No.116/2 and not Sy. No.116/3 as reflected in the sale
deed.
7. The defendant being aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree preferred an appeal before the
First Appellate Court. An application is also filed by the
appellant before the First Appellate Court to appoint a
Survey Commissioner. That application was heard along
with the appeal. The First Appellate Court has concluded
that there is no need to appoint the Court Commissioner
as none objected to the Commissioner's report placed
before the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has
concluded that the 1st defendant's vendor had no title
over 3 acres and 9 guntas of land said to have been
conveyed under the registered s
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.