Between:
IN THE HIGH comm OF KA_RNA'I"Al<A AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 22"' day of September, 2016
Bcforc:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G A.
Regular Second Appeal 844 / 2005
Beerappa S/0 Kodappa -- since dead by
A
erffee
Sml Chowdamma W/0 iate Baémppa V
R/0 Beeradevara Tempie Stretzt'
Birur Plobli, Kadur, Chikmagalur .
Neeiakanthappa S/0 Bée1;}§p})a
R/0 Beezfadevara Tempie Sircter --
Birur Hobli, Kaduz', Chikmva.gae1uV:'---- A
Sml VD_e\firarnnfae'i
BetI'adah_aIIiA Vi1}:.1g€';A"i":1ri'k<-;re Tq
Chik1n:1ga'!ur'v V
.S1'}at R_¢.n:1v]_<z11nm'a 'D/s}Bcer;1pp21
" ,Rx'.<w Mtjdi.gc«:.'§:. Anthz-1raga11a}-I0bii
T a1ji1<e.1'c~Tq,AV Chikmztgaltlr
Appellants
(By Sn' V'Vig11csh§Jj;.;:7e:S Sluzsfri, Adv.)
VA { _ '_ 4/i:1_d:
_ 3}} Dddzm1al1appa. 69 yrs
'SIG Heggzllilm
'[ B H Dc\-'anna CC? DCVEIIIIILE, 56 yrs
S/0 Hcggannzt
IQ
Both are r/0 old Ajjampurzt Road
Birttr Hohli, KadtirTalt1k C.
Chik.rnagz1lt1r District Respontie1t_ts_
(By Sri Ram Bhat for S R Kulkarni, Adv.)
The Second Appeal is filed undc.i:_ S.l:(.l.l)C
Procedure praying to set aside the judgmeri':. and decree dated _l9..2.2005
in RA 40/2003 by the Civil Judgeh(S1'.Dvri.); Kadur'h-ireversirgg Vthe";
judgment and decree dated 7. l2.20()2.t_Vii'i~.VQS 295./21999 by "t--he'"P1't'. Civil"
Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kadur.
The Appeal coming <)n"'for .l%ie.ari?:jg tliiiyidéiyi Court delivered the
following: C 1 ~ '
:JU1:3-C:-}:ilJE.3\lTT'--:_i"' ..
'is assailing the order of the
Civil Judge'"(sr'.13v'n.).;:1%;;§';;.t;g'itt_ i2A «+0/2003 on 19.2.2005.
iA;'s'tzit'. in OS..l9C;9 was filed by the plaintifts/respondents
the udge (_’Jr.Dvn.), Kadur seeking for a declaration and
in’}’t’;rie’ti.on “z’:rtd~.,_als:o*l;or cancellation of the sale deed in respect” of
CV propeity in Block No} of Birur Kaval to an extent of 5.00
C V’ ‘ .4′:”t:’;re:-: av_hiehVV’i’s said to have been granted to the father of the plziititiffs by
__tl1e7’gove’rninent under the Grow More Food Scheme.
g f).
» -1:». ”
=.-…;»:r’
{\J
approached the lower appellate court. The lower appellate eourt_.while
deereeing the suit of the piztintills. reversed the finding of the tri–§1l’eo’u.rt’.’
According to the lower appellate court, what has s_tj:E.;l_”i>z3___
favour of the appe.llant herein is a different Mhloe.k i.e;;”‘Sy:.:l\lol§’6l3’–andl
deelziration sought for by the plztiritiffs is in S4y.l\3_'().6}”l.i’Aee-ordingl:w_hi”leA
allowing the appeal, the suit was decreed’against-whizth, idefe_nVda_.i1t is
before this court in second appeal, on va1fious_gropunds. ass_ai1.i:.1g?the order
of the lower appellate court.
At the time oi”.ed_ni.iss.iez1,l’the following points were ‘framed for
consideration: ‘ l
1 Wl”§Cll3f1_1′ thelowerzilppellate court was justified in holding that the
V’ sa1.e:’deed ‘dated 22;.”9’.”E976 in favour of the appellant is only a
‘ ;.sham ;1ndibo.gu:;–.trztnsaetion and is not an out and out sale?
W4hethe;*.tlie.V.s’uit or the plt1.ii1ti.l’l’s is barred by limitation’?
31 .. Whether the lower ztppellate court erred in grzmtirig it decree of
‘deel’zti’2iti<)1i and injunction although there is identity of the
fproperty involved as contended by the defendant'?
Heard the counsel representing the parties.
It is the submission of the appeilanfs counsel. the lower A’
court without looking into the prayer sought for by the pia-}.4tit’ifi’s,ysitnpiyi1 ”
proceeded on merits only on the ground tliat-What.has–i_4beeni’retf’ecterjj.in7..
the sale deed is Sy.No.6/3 which has been
plaintiffs are seeking for a declaration Both 4dVif’terent
properties. Without looking intoythe t’ac’t’t1al:_:position and’t’iAtE.e”Vava_i1able
to the p1aint.ift’s, accepting the sale -bv”e;1nd.2tries, when the
defendant is in possess:ion=oi’ the 1att1é;i’o1f i’:”rtor.e than twenty years after
the sale dectthas b_eerti’:_=:>giste1-ed,v despite ndrnission by the pEaint.i.’ff in his
cross exa1n.in2ttio_n ttsrV._hia~nding—.oycf possession of the land that has
been gt-aiitedv to they t’atAhietf’ioi” the plaintilt’ and the same {and has been
iczoniveyedi; that the arithmetical error crept in in the sale
deed» was of.Ve1;*sight, proceeded to decree the suit which is
t3;t’t'()t}t:t)t1′:’.s’~.._
i’ , i giPer.fcontra. counsel for the respondents submitted, Sy.N’o.6 is a
T y’_;tst..vexteiit of landt What has been conveyed by the father of the
32: ,–~
K (:5
6
plaintiffs to the deiendant as per the sale deed, is only Sy.N_o.6/3.
Sy.No.6/ 1. and 6/3 are two d.i’fferent lands. There is no error
committed by the lower nppellate court. Further. it is SUbt’1:I’iiE'(‘:.d;’i$’é1§~§€;1″‘-, ‘
on the cause of action. since there was 9. threat’ of dispossession__and’_
encroachment on the Ennd in Sy.No.6/1 which wits gianteiiviitci ethe
of the plaintiff under the Scheme 01′ ._gfo”=tiei’11i11.et1t_, the ii’tjwiettiaprpeiiiate
court has rightly decreed the suit .whiehV.does_notiCall for in’te.rferenee.
In the case on hand, whatis7n_otieec5.j_ i:::, ‘dé’:C€’fding to the admission
of th6 Plaintiff in his.Veross»¢xami3§’tttio–f1.~’*,S3′.ii”i0t6},I”alone has been
granted in ‘I’;w()u_r _of”th*e .fathei”oAi””‘th_e plaintiits and not any other block.
It appears, the seine e(>t1tda}i;t_Ve«–._been conveyed by the father of the
plaintiff it;1’t”a\»fou1* ot”‘»the’dei’eiidant. Might be there is a mistake/error
in ‘crept in the m_ef’o_t’ drafting of the sale deed unnoticed by either of the
p2trtii’e.s.”-i’__The* was executed in September, 1976 September
whereas the gm-: is said to have been made in July 1976. The suit for
it ” ‘:_iieeIai=attie(__)n isV’i’i1ed during 1999 nearly after it iapse of twenty two years.
I__n~__tEi;-1t”‘view of the matter, having noted the relief sought for by the
–«;3:liai’Iat’iiE’f’s, since it is a suit for declaration holding that it should be filed
a”‘=.»’€ “W
J ‘3
within three. years. the trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate _c_ourt_._
however, without visualising the situation whether no other -‘!ivi,i..l”l.-dii’-<V'\-';i""i.$
granted to the father of the piaintiffs so as to convey ths;j1':::a11'iell'tii'–t *
defeiidant and also without verifying whether"i'n..addiiiorrtoe–Sj,r.No_i(i/l;._y
Sy.No.6/3 was also granted or not, pr'ocie.ededi A' to ttecreey tliei
technically presuming that what has been_i':o_nveyed._is'dii'i'erei'it"atiitl What
has been retained by the plztiiitilifs i'athe1"'is–.ti:ifferent.
It is needless to say that the eannoytt eoi1:t'er better title than
what he has. It is also_:no_t ma-tie lo'ut.l¥t7y ithei..;)laii1tiffi;iithat there are two
lands granted in i':-txi/oar .ofi"the-ir_fatyheri. _'lf any material is available on
record to show that there pieces of land available to the
p1aintiE'fs';'father 1 and 6/3, then necessarily, the finding
Vayrriyedy ll "titer appellate court could have been accepted.
I ll _Soli'atr:'a..$ conveying of the land whether it was against the Land
Grant Rates C?vi'~(,)ll}.'CAl'WlSC it is nobotly's case. More over, plaintiffs have
i' If'"n_ot~;)leade.d v:"i_o'i* protiucecf any material in this regard basically to seek for
":1. deelaratgioii. Further, what is noticed is, apparently the tower court
at it — .
without. entering into :1 di.~;eussie11 as to the tttztintaiatztbility of the sui-.t:__, on
the point of limitation. proceeded to decree the suit which is er:'(b’:iee.=.is,
Aeeordingiy answering the second stzbstatttiztl qtteéit-i..(m’ l:’1w’,’–«
white setting aside the judgment and deeree _p4zis.~-:sed_j ..t:11’e.VV«lVV(_>”vvje_ar_
appelkate court. the matter is remitted: te thed’E¢:>.”.’Ver et>u1*t.&.t'(>
dispose of the same in £1CC()1’dEtl’1CC with 1it’tié§tettta1
also on merit’s, if need be, after to parties.
The parties are permitted to if need be.
Appeal attowed. H
Sd/1
Eedge
An