SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top