IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAfifAI}{.A %
CIRCUIT BENCH A'§''I3HA.RW_A[}. ] '
DATED TI-HS THE 2ND pA"Ir_cSI§_* APRTI'L_, f20Q9. " TA
BIé:::-*.c}'IIe.12; ' T V
THE HON'BLE MR .IUSTI?§:$. 'RAVI Iv"IA:.I.I\/IATI;
R.Ir.A'. _
BETWEEN:
S] 0 RAM$3INCn .MAJ€)R7..'j - I-
vITHALsIHG"'*RAi§ds'INIcI'Ia§AIII>u:T jig
R/O BAII,I_r%bENTs 10 T0 12 ARE M¥NORS AND
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
13.
NVATURAL GUARDIAN SMTBASAVVA
BHIMAPPA SAN KRATI' I
"~«.YEL§;AVVA W/O DUNDAPPA HUCHEGOUDAR
MAJOR
MAHADEVI W] O BABAGOUDA HUCHEGOUDAR
MAJOR
ééi"
15. TARABAI W] O JAISING RAJPUT
MAJOR
16. SHANTABAIW/O PRATAPSIHG RAJl'UT ' '
MAJOR -
17. MUKUNDSING S/O JAi»E:=.I:Vi\%'~€7s RAJ£*I;'1'
MINOR
3.8. VENKATSING 3/ Q JAISI'NG_ R'AJPU'~r
MINOR ~ ' _
R.1'7 AND 18 ARE MINORS BN1'), _
REPRESENTED E3Y"'1'H.E§R' .1\§QTH.ER "AN13
NATU RAJ; '@p'_'AR D__IA3?é TARABAI-- eR,V15.
ALL "ARE R)Ai)%4sAL.iG=1,:é;M,
ATHANI *rAL.m~:i, BEE-GAUM DISTRICI'.
RESPONDENTS
" (8? .§3§<\3i.f B:'%'*mIsI~ii5§A &. PRASANNA DESHPANDE,
' AIJVQSATEJVSVFOR 12.2, 4, 5, 7, 3, 9, 10, :2, 13 AND :4)
fTH§SxRF'A IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPO AGAINST THE
V. ~JIJ_DGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 26.9.2000 PASSES IN
No.55/1935 ON THE FILE OF' THE CIVIL JUBGE
{:SR.DN.) 81'. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, ATHANI, DISMISSING
V' 'THE SUIT' FOR DECLARATION 6:3 INJUNCFKON.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
oM'""
JUDGMENT
In terms of the order dat£f,:iV1»AA»V
passed in terms of the compI_omje.e.. ;:)”et:A.itioI3..:b3.t
herein, a compromise was the
properties except insofargas Hence
the appellant contends’. is concerned
only.
judgIf1ent–. .dafied 26.9.2000 passed in
O.S.No.i’3i3[__19f}6V”‘ _5yA’ Judge (Sr.Dn.) Athani
disxzeiesiug the
sought for a decree to cancel or
the sale deed dated 6.3.1968; to deciare
is the owner of the suit schedule properties;
F. et3»1p4esBa “‘1.’n the defendants frem interfering in the pla1’nt;ifi’s
pessession among other conseqnentza’ I reliefs.
4. The fiial Court in the course of deciding the suit
framed as many as 13 issues for consideration. Issue No.11
was with negate to the fact whether the suit has been filed
-€l<'""
within time. The mm Court on
considering the evidence, came
suit is time barred. Eiren though V’
other issues, the suit came on the
ground of limitation, ‘judgment and
decree, the present
5. I learned Counsel
Viespondents, some of Whom
are and the Counsel for
the othef”xespofide§1ts
, E§.”S;K.a;z1:a.te, the learned Counsel appearing for
‘ V contends that the trial Court committed an
H ‘mixer :sd’e:;91¢;tisg that the suit is barred by limitation. In
tie contends that the his} Court could not have
A’1el=i.ed on certain stray statemeets made by the plaintifi’ in
to some to the conclusion with regard to the
dd ” ‘knowledge of the transaction. While referring to para~»}2 of
the plaint, he contends that the ma} Court has misconstrued
the plea of the plaintifi While coming to the erroneous
Wa”
conclusion. He further contends »H1»;1»1at –«.
statement made by the piaintifi’ in 1£.§1e
has also been n1iscons1Iued.»ho.1.dinng’W§ h at ,
lmowledge of the said He that
the trial Court having that the
suit is barred byAV’iinaita1′:ion:T;’ ‘AA:i;3’1vv’ei21l1ed for by this
7. Fkl’;-i:’IfiV of the 1213′ 1 Court
with the conduct of defendant No.1
which goes! to si:o{éAVA’ has eompleteiy cheated the
and has got executed the aileged sake
misrepresentation, fraud and undue
He therefore concludes by submitting
t}1at–.the”tzéé{i Court came to the conclusion that fiend has
V. ‘oeen Hence interference is called for.
” On heating Sri B.S.Kamate, the learned Counsel
% for the appellant, I am of the considered View that
there are no grounds to entertain this appeal for the
following reasons.
a@L:’
9. The t:n’a1 Court in the course of eonsideéjdxég
No.1 1 has recorded its finding that the sud; K V’
Reference has been made to the 3.
wherein he has stated that it was eay
2 and 3 bad right to purchase and
defendant No. 1 had ‘to aodvvtkxaé sale was
on a valid and proper _::\:§f£2e§:t1v”d’efendants 2 and
3 are in posseesion [cf sale deed dates!
13.5.19-?’4′ sdggdseddwwids not admitted by the
indt’ lie Specificafly stated that since
1968 to the deceased Khushal Singh had
never the A’ 1:101′ had notice to him. Hence by
e ghss«..a7dmission of the plaintifi’ in the deposition, the
H to the eonciusion that the suit is bamed by
E1m’ 144”’t..’a1..1;:i”<'.§:;j1. .'
A' i am of the View that no error is committed by the
The conclusion arrived at by the txial Court is
% " "'"1§ure3y in terms of the cleposifion of P'W.1 and hence the
saxoe cannot be cootraverted. This say of PW.1 himself has
been reievant to the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court.
09%"
1 1. Further it can be seen
of his piajnt has stated that.defencian£’No. 1 *’
registered sale deed in favoiir defeedeeiie: 3
respect of iand in .defefi£1’afi{ No.2 has
passed the saic Vdeed half share in
favour of defe:e.e1 ént I sale deed dated
24.519783 3 were aware of the
fiaud}i1eiit”ee;1e Rieed piaintiff on 6.3.1968.
Heflflffiiit.’ can had knowledge of the
impugned Lsa1e’dee}:1 ‘i8:6.19’74 or in the year 1978. Hence
ihis Aféiet-..in«*£x> consideration, the suit is barred by
e Béfiitafioji.
« of the plaint averments and the deposition
of . sigitvcan be concluded that the plaintiff had imowledge
V’ :f_” fhee impugned sale deed dated 6.3.1968 either in the year
or in the year 3978. The present suit has been filed on
1986 and hence the same is clearly barred by limitation.
ea”
» irejec t*::£1;«.I\§si3
13. Further, while cross–examining defcj1:1ida1;if ‘aA’~.
suggestion was put to him ‘whetheiwthe 5facif: of.
sale deed obtained by Bas\r:ra:1’t;’S«iI1g::’_A_’W$s1s
Huchagouda and Sankratti ~i.1;spife of m¢;sra«ud.;1c1;t saie V ”
deed, the said pers0I;__s haveAVp1uijthased %;11’c: –s:A1itEla11d. This
suggestion alsdgoes tofiiow had knowledge
about the fraudulent at the time
of sale deeeiifl’
14, reasons, 1 do not find any reason
to interfem” With’Vt«he.Aor§i’eri oi”.the trial Court.
»’ The ap§eal….bcing devoid of merits is accoxtiingly
Sdi-w
Iudqe
.fE’ts*’