Karnataka High Court
Hanuman Singh vs Mr. Y.Basheer Ahmed on 17 June, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
R.F.A.No.1344 OF 2020 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMAN SINGH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O. SRI. NAIN SINGH
2. MRS. SUMAN DEVI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O. SRI. HANUMAN SINGH
BOTH ARE EARLIER RESIDING AT NO.1006,
27TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, 41ST CROSS,
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 069.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1,
"APPAN MANE", HOUSE NO.7,
3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN
1ST STAGE KHB COLONY,
BANGALORE-560 079.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, , ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MR. Y. BASHEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O. MR. Y. NAZEER AHMED
2. MRS. R. ANEES SULTANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O. MR. Y. BASHEER AHMED
2
BOTH RESIDING AT NO.21,
SAPPINGS ROAD CROSS
C/NO.10TH STREET
BANGALORE-560 051.
3. SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY,
MAJOR,
S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. ANEES AHMED KHAN,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.35, R.V. ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 10.06.2022, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH XLI
AND RULE-1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.02.2020 PASSED IN O.S. NO.5979/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-NO.42)
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECTIFICATION DEEDS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.
No.5979/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 29.02.2020 passed by the XLI Addl. City Civil
Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit for rectification of the
registered sale deeds and for other reliefs were dismissed by
the trial court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the material on record.
Notice to respondents was dispensed with, since they
had remained ex-parte before the trial court and had not
contested the suit.
3. The material on record indicates that the appellants -
plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit inter-alia contending that
the suit schedule immovable property originally belonged to
3rd respondent - 3rd defendant, who sold the same in favour of
defendants 1 and 2 - respondents 1 and 2 vide registered
sale deed dated 29.06.1988. Under registered sale deed
dated 31.01.2005, the defendants 1 and 2 - respondents 1
and 2 sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the
plaintiffs, who became the absolute owner in lawful and
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. It was contended that there was a mistake / error in
the measurements of the suit schedule property in the sale
deeds dated 29.06.1988 and 31.01.2005, which required to be
rectified and since despite repeated requests and demands,
respondents did not comply, plaintiffs filed the said suit before
the trial court.
4. As stated supra, the respondents - defendants
remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit. On behalf of
the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1
to P12 were marked on their behalf. The defendants did not
cross-examine PW-1 or adduce any evidence on their behalf.
After hearing the plaintiffs, the trial court proceeded to pass
the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit,
aggrieved by which, the appellants are before this Court by
way of the present appeal.
5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will
indicate that the trial court has failed to consider and
appreciate the unimpeached, uncontroverted and
unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the appellants -
plaintiffs that there are mistakes / errors in the measurements
to the sale deeds dated 29.06.1988 and 31.01.2005, which
require to be rectified. Further, the reasoning and findings
recorded by the trial court at paragraph-12 of the impugned
judgment are clearly fallacious and contrary to the material on
record, apart from being perverse and arbitrary and
consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by
the trial court deserves to be set aside.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
upon re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire material
on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the trial court deserves to be
set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs deserve to be decreed in
their favour.
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
29.02.2020 passed by the XLI Addl.City civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.5979/2019 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snc/Srl.
