IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT . Dated: This the 2631 day of ~ _ E4 'V BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE'-.AV.§IA(}AI§f€/§'FE;IAAN " " REGULAR sEc0ND'AEEEAL N'o.v=1§75[':2oD§ ABDUL RAHIM sABr s/0 KULMI KHASIM SAB ., AGED ABGIJT EQYRS, _ R/O OPP."MAHA:DEVA"RICE MILL' SHIKARIPU;R_A_ ~ » SHIMDGA, ' . :1. " APPELLANT (By sfi S.R._A AND SR1 P"-IJHANANJAYILZ'A_D'HSm.---) AND: , .iji'D NTADAERADYA PPA - s/ea SH.[VARUDRAPPA ., 'AGED 'ABQUT 54 ms _ 'R[C»...SA.LU.Ri.~VILLAGE ._ ._ANJANAP'I;JRA HOBLI A _ SHIKAR'I.PURA TALUK "'sH:M0C;A 577 201. ~ V t. RESPONDENT
Size KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. )
RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
_ :”4:JU’DGEMENT 85 DEGREE DT.8.2.2006. PASSED m
R.A.NO.25/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE
2
D’I’.i29.1.’Z29(}5 PASSED H4 {)’S.17?/1997 SN THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE QJRDN.) SH¥K§§.R£PUR.
‘I”H¥S APPEAL {::o:vnNG am FOR HEAR1Nc;tF:*I§?i;:;;:”‘».,
BAY; THE COURT DELEVERED THE F?Gi..LOWIN__(‘§§._; ‘ 1’-‘ ”
JGDGMENEWM
This second appeal is by 1:i§.i:3;i19}L£iff’*b éf9:r3_ifrii11¢g iSV ‘azfé: »:f§*’al1ed_ vqusstion.
2. Thg %p1aii’1tif?$»céa.f5e in brief is that he entered
into”._%j{aj’VII10rtgan§g’e.. itranssactian with the defendant an
_to0§<: Rs.i2,000/– as the mortgage
'§'1f;d'A'T:=.iif.:1e}:'ea§'(:er the plaintiff' has been in
'V p0s§::$SiVQ:1.' 'bf the suit property, but Iater on, the
V' Gama ta lmew that the defendant had
' éigtéiized 3. sale: éeeci in respect ef the very same suit
u and the plaintiff thus became a vi-3t'jm of
fraud. The 03.13.56 of actien arose on 5.5.9'? just few
}
I5
ansvzared agamsiz. the piaimiifi'. The triai cdiiii
{iiSII1iSS('3d the suit of the plaintiff and
preférreci by the plaintiff also was dis1I1is:.s $ :ciV.Vvb;{§?.::'i'}i1e "
lower appellate caurt.
5. I have heard the ijotzigasal
parties azzd perused 1:11:63 eI2i:ir:3″119i,a1téI’-§{;a1 Ofi’2’1″i:3′{3(}I”V(:§1 and
alm the statements Gf b§I{.*:a :§2.,: -.
6, «c<}s;1j;1sf'3:§ § Hegde
Hudiaznangz put. folward the
contefiéicié f '$3.3 a mortgage cieeci
dailed which is; a registered
dz1 of the suit pmperty being
‘plaintiff in favem” of the dafendant (ices
}f1Qt5’__ ar:’:.”sé’ ~v.111i1;t%:’:§S the 1:119rtgage is first 1″ec£t;-tamed.
_ ‘I’I”1c3’if*~’:>f0;=-7%,’ ‘:2§?itl°:0ut there being rsdemption of the
.L,:::x;A\:7:’:4gagé,. the sake couid not hava been made: by the
in favour of the defendant and this itself goeg
T tdshew that fraud was piayeé on the piaintifi” by the
A defermaxlt. Learned counsel in this cannection
Ffiffifffid to the evidance 0f {ha parties and aisc: iihfi
2′?
5
documant. pmduced, and submitted t.ha*:_i both the
cauzis did mat censider this aspect of the matte:”.,”-.1:
was 3139 =;:{::11?;$11é<:Ci £319.': '£1516? plaintiff is in .,
01' the suit property even til} this day" a11¥§;"§cc*;}.fj*;;35i:1.% ' "
E'€V€I}.U.€ reeortis were seughii tofbé fimfi-Licgéid.
regard. Anothcr submissian n1aci'<?.__ iisthat
11195;" cansiéiei' remandizlg ma"i:!:e3:'* ._t_.o3"»f;%:1e"',I0Wer
appeiiam Ceurt.
3′. _(‘_.;’_f: Iéaméfii <::c:11:"1se1 Sri.G.
.§'«'LI'iS§"11"}f£i;~I?{11,11;i§'.1_'§" t1;i:~;:.__:V:'éspQ1)rIi:ed th-:3
judgmifixts ‘ :?:f—-b<:=i<;:w by coI1ter1di:1g that
fha sale "d:_;e€t{i .:'::§,§:'<§ci11c:eci by th@ defendant
az1s3,'s§§I';sL'~ all ' V§;_<_);i:ttc?;11ti.<3I1s put fmward by the
:3§;ipé:1ia:;t:'.s'«zjiimifxsei. Tm: triai court has considered
the. "<:iI1E:i:;::"."%:s:1Vfi'fl&I1ce in proper pfirspectivtz and the
3.pp<_;§i1ga_£§3..c.'94§;1rt also confirmed '£116 View taken by the
…. ?.f'i3}"«.QOL¥fE by ebservirxg that net Grxiy thfi suit 0f the
' is barmd by iimitatien, but at the Same 1:11:16,
'4 sale dead EXMD1 ifldicates that the dafendant is
the absoilgzlte {}"'E%'116T in pesssssion cf the suit property,
%
'T
subsequelitiy the 3.333 éefid came tea be executed by
the _p1:5s:ini;iiff in favaur af defendant as per EXI) 1
the sale deed. is of Ulfi year 1971. Thfi (3{)fiiZ(':Ij}.':€Zi%f.VZff1'.4
the ieamad csounsel for the appeiiant that',I. j'éx?if£;1':{V§j1;'i:ii% u
that being mo1*tgage, the sale {i颧fi'«C(§fli1(i_:3ii§% _hé.'Si§:
bafin éxfictlteci, @065 not cgiivinfig :E¥.1£'".3 h3V_ifi?g». goi&£"–.V
througii the a::onter:t:s g–,;}e~ _Ex.D1 itself.
Adjustzixent «sf the {Bf ailieullt
ullder Cafiiéfiéidarantien are
:’c:fQ~yr€d 1:01: and both ceurts
have aJ;’1d HI11<31'e particularly the
trial} {:0Lifi:._ §(;€T1t,efltS sf .E)x.D 1 at para]? .
'~ _ 3§11eféibi*€*;'as tbs: pazfiefi {(3 both the deeds
_a1'°3: 'cxné-v.,_gfl:?iCitE':{e game and as the sala deed alga
flifiléfieilvfi. — thfi adjustment of the xnortgage
. R.am<:m:r;t {inc towards sale Cazlsideratiolz and ftxrthcr,
"'-"§i2£*, E;i;a1anc$ ameunt being also paid in the presence
H91'? the Sub-Registrar and endorsement aisa beixzg
made by the Sub-§€eg's£:ra:z* himsalf in thc sale deed
EXJDI, it has-:; to be infermd that the mortgage I
y
ya'
transaction got extinguished urzder fix-:3 saie dafid
E331. Hausa, E do not find any II1§I"i{ in the
<:::3m:€:"1t:i:3r1 put fmward by the appfiilantfs CO_1;i3sé§{'. A '
11. As far as the piea of f1*afgi<j«;iS_ C{§fis?_€:13iI§:dV,A f
there is :10 evidance pIa.ce¢:if;0_proVc'3. pa_rfti::1tia13s iyf
the fraud piayed by the appéfléfit. 8131- pther
hand, executinn 0f the préiéz-fi;:1:'1c:3 0?
the Sub«~Reg5St:'ar as §__)¢:£f -fiuflifies the
(3-:)I1ter2ti0z1::' " as regards the
fraud $§ijS't:7V1:Vr1<:e ef any avidance
foxthccwfaifig {mi emf fraud, boil": ceurts
have _I'ighil§;-» reja¢f:.a6;'v_ thé submission made in this
V' x' ….. .. V
as {ha iimitatien aspect is;
V V . ::on5e1né§,”Ei1e sale deed is cf the year 19′? 1., but €116
‘ “..§va§fi1sd in the yczar 13995 alums: after 24 years
-‘ iherefare the ‘ma: semi has held that the:
% ‘decimation saught: far by 11115 plaintiff is beggmd the
A iimitaiian period prescrziljaci by law. This fmfiifig of
the caurts beimv 3159 is in cansanance with the
}
s-=