Karnataka High Court
Sri C Nagaraj vs Smt Geetha on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
RFA No. 520 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI C NAGARAJ
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
@ CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO 138, BENGALURU THOTADA MANE
REDIHALLI ROAD, KASABA HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK-563 114.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOKESH BOOVANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETHA
Digitally
signed by W/O SRINIVASAN K
RUPA V D/O N KANCHANAMALA
Location: AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
High Court
Of Karnataka
2. SMT. N KANCHANAMALA
W/O HANUMANTHARAJU
AGE ABOUT 73 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO 40
NRI LAYOUT, PHASE 2
12TH CROSS GREEN GARDEN
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 016.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
RFA No. 520 of 2021
HC-KAR
(R1 & R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE BY WAY OF PAPER
PUBLICATION-DULY SERVED(SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)-
VICE COURT ORDER DATED 05.11.2024)
---
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 ORDER XLI RULE
1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.120/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the appellant filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration to -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR declare that the sale deed dated 11.07.2019 is void, further direction to the Sub-Registrar, Bangarpet, to cancel the same by directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute the registered cancellation of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. It is averred that the plaintiff is a resident of Bangarpet and he maintains a temple wherein the defendants used to visit and they developed friendship with the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff helped the defendants in purchase of certain properties. There were some financial transactions between them and the defendants by misrepresentation and fraud obtained the sale deed on 11.07.2019 for which no consideration was paid. Hence, the plaintiff sought the relief for cancellation of the sale deed.
3. The defendants were served with summons but they remained absent and were placed ex parte.
4. The Trial Court recorded the evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the case by cogent evidence that the sale deed is obtained by -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR fraud and proceeded to dismiss the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff is in appeal.
5. Sri.Lokesh Boovanahalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and came to an incorrect conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to examine the Bank Manager to establish that the defendants have not paid the sale consideration. It is submitted that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the sale deed obtained by the defendant is by fraud and in the absence of evidence from the other side, the Court ought to have believed the version of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. It is further submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is illiterate, no Demand Draft has been given to the appellant and without any consideration, the sale deed has been executed by the defendants. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by decreeing the suit as prayed.
6. The respondents, though served, remained absent. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?"
9. The aforesaid point is answered in the negative for the following reasons:
a) The case of the appellant before the Trial Court was that the plaintiff was maintaining the temple at Bangarpet where the defendants used to visit and hence they got acquainted each other. The plaintiff developed confidence in the defendants and thereafter, they had various financial transactions depending on the needs. It is specifically averred that the plaintiff helped the defendants in purchasing the property at Karahally. The defendants obtained the loan from the plaintiff in the year 2017 which they returned with additional money. It is further averred that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Sri.Nanda and his -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR wife vide registered sale deed dated 28.01.2016. It is also averred that a loan was obtained from Canara Bank for development of the property. It is contended that the defendants, in the month of July 2019 approached the plaintiff, insisted him to execute some document before the Sub-
Registrar which was required to be produced before the Income Tax Authority and believing the words, the plaintiff affixed his LTM as he is an illiterate person and thereafter, he came to know that the defendants fraudulently got the sale deed executed. It is further contended that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is Rs.15,40,286/- and out of the said amount, Rs.5,00,000/- is shown as being paid during the intermediate period and the remaining balance was paid by way of Demand Draft. A perusal of the covenant in the sale deed dated 11.07.2019 which is a disputed document clearly indicates that Rs.5,00,000/- is shown to have been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff on different dates and remaining Rs.10,40,286/- was paid by way of Demand Draft bearing No.000606 dated 11.07.2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Bangarpet Branch.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR
b) The assertion of the plaintiff with regard to taking him to the Sub-Registrar's office by the defendants, asking him to affix his LTM on certain documents which he understood as the documents required for income tax purpose, has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court as the perusal of the sale deed clearly indicates that the title of the document is written as sale deed and the plaintiff being a businessman, cannot be called as an illiterate person to the transaction. The plaintiff knowing fully well that the document was a sale deed, participated in the process of registration before the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar and thereafter, the property was conveyed by a valid instrument. The aforesaid assertion of the plaintiff in his oral evidence is required to be considered as a self-serving statement without any corroborative evidence to believe such an assertion. Though the plaintiff produced Exs.P1 to P26, it does not establish the fact that the sale deed was executed by the defendants by fraudulent means. The records indicate that the major portion of the sale consideration is paid by way of Demand Draft. Nothing had prevented the plaintiff to examine the Manager of the Bank to establish that the sale consideration is not paid and the Demand Draft was not encashed by the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR plaintiff. The plaintiff has also made certain assertions with regard to the financial transactions between him and the defendants. However, no evidence to that effect is placed before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the version of the plaintiff with regard to the earlier transactions. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit based on the pleadings and evidence in the absence of any rebuttable evidence, is required to be rejected.
c) The Trial Court, taking into consideration the pleading, framed the issues and the plaintiff adduced oral evidence and produced documentary evidence. After considering the material available on record, it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants fraudulently got the sale deed executed from the plaintiff without any sale consideration and proceeded to dismiss the suit. On appreciation of the pleading and evidence on record, we fully concur with the findings recorded by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case for grant of relief sought in the suit. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB RFA No. 520 of 2021 HC-KAR
10. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly, rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application is also disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1