Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ramakrishna vs Smt V Padmavathi on 20 December, 2023
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
R.F.A No.1523 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)
C/W
R.F.A No.1026 OF 2017 (DEC)
IN R.F.A No.1523 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O M. CHINNANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT MUDDIREDDY PALLI
HINDUPUR TALUK-515 201
ANDHRA PRADESH
2. SRI. P. MUNIVENKATA REDDY
S/O NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT BALAJINAGAR
HINDUPUR-515 201
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. SRI. K. BALABHASKAR REDDY
S/O K. SURYA SHEKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.104/J, MANTRI PARADISE
ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 076
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
2
PRESENT R/AT NO.26-4-2863
RPGT ROAD, HINDUPUR-515 201
ANDHRA PRADESH
4. SRI. K. SHEKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NO.28, 10TH MAIN ROAD
MALLESHPALYA
BANGALORE-560 075
PRESENT RESIDING AT BALAJINAGAR
HINDUPUR-515 201
ANDHRA PRADESH
5. SRI. V. LOKANATH REDDY
S/O SREERAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1254
BALAJINAGAR
HINDUPUR-515 201
ANDHRA PRADESH
6. SRI. A. RAVI PRAKASH
S/O A. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT MUKKADPET
HINDUPUR-515 201
ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. V. PADMAVATHI
W/O M.V. ASHWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.566
3RD MAIN ROAD
POLICE STATION ROAD
HEBBALA
BANGALORE-560 024
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
3
2. SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
S/O LATE ADINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.65, TRISHUL, 2ND CROSS
5TH MAIN, ANANDNAGAR
BANGALORE-24
2(A). SMT. K. BHARATHI
W/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2(B). KUM. PRATHUSHA
D/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
2(C). KUM. BHUMISHA
D/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 2(A)
2(D). MASTER. K. VINISH REDDY
S/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
MINOR
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER 2(A)
ALL THE ABOVE 2(A) TO 2 (D) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.B3-47, 208, SFS
I MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE
NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE NORTH
3. SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR REDDY
S/O LATE BALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. SRI. K.V. PRASAD REDDY
S/O LATE ADINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. SRI. K. MAHEEDARA REDDY
S/O LATE ADINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
4
APPLICANT NO.1 TO 4 R/AT
NO.12/583, 3RD CROSS, SAI NAGAR
ANANTHPUR, ANDRA PRADESH
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4
ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDER
THE APPLICANT NO.1
SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. A.R. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING PROPOSED R2(A) TO (D) AND R3 TO R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W O-XLI, R-1 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED IN
O.S. NO.2050/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
IN R.F.A No.1026 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
S/O LATE ADINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.65, TRISHUL
2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN
ANANDNAGAR
BANGALORE-24
1(A). SMT. K. BHARATHI
W/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
B3-47, 1ST MAIN ROAD
208 SFS, 4TH PHASE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
1(B). KUM. PRATHUSHA
D/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT B3-47, 1ST MAIN ROAD
208 SFS, 4TH PHASE
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
5
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
1(C). KUM. BHUMIKA
D/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
RESIDING AT B3-47, 1ST MAIN ROAD
208 SFS, 4TH PHASE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN
SMT. K. BHARATHI
1(D). MASTER. K. VINISH REDDY
S/O LATE CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
RESIDING AT B3-47, 1ST MAIN ROAD
208 SFS, 4TH PHASE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS
MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN
SMT. K. BHARATHI
2. SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR REDDY
S/O BALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. SRI. K.V. PRASAD REDDY
S/O ADINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4. SRI. K. MAHEEDARA REDDY
S/O ADINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 RESIDING
AT NO.12/583, 3RD CROSS
SAI NAGAR, ANANTHPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 REPRESENTED
HEREIN BY THEIR
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
6
G.P.A. HOLDER, APPELLANT NO.1
SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. S.S. RAMDAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. S.R. KAMALACHARAN AND
SHRI. SUNDARSWAMY AND
SHRI. RAMDAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. V. PADMAVATHI
W/O SRI. M.V. ASHWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. MISS. VASTALA
AGED 39 YEARS
3. MISS. NALINI
AGED 36 YEARS
4. MISS. SOUMYA
AGED 34 YEARS
5. MISS. PREETHI
AGED 34 YEARS
6. MISS. SANGEETHA
AGED 32 YEARS
7. MR. MAHESH
AGED 34 YEARS
8. MR. PRASHANTH
AGED 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE
CHILDREN OF M.V. ASHWATHNARAYANA
AND ARE RESIDING ATN O.327
CQAL LAY-OUT
SAHAKARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 092
9. SRI. RAMANNA
S/O VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
7
10. SRI. YUVARAJ
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
11. SRI. H.V. NAGARAJ
S/O VERANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 11 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.3678, 6TH CROSS
SUBRAMANYANAGAR 2ND PHASE
BANGALORE-560 010
12. BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 027
13. REVENUE OFFICE
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE-560 052 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8;
SHRI. S. SESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
SHRI. GANAPATHY BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R10 & R11;
SHRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R12 & R13;
SHRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R12)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED IN OS
NO.1544/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
THESE RFAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 02.11.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:-
R.F.A No.1523/2012
C/W R.F.A No.1026/2017
8
JUDGMENT
The suit property involved in these two appeals is one
and the same. Hence, they are heard simultaneously and
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. O.S. No. 2050/2006 is filed by one
Smt. Padmavathi against M.Ramakrishna and others praying
inter alia to declare that the Sale Deed dated 26.08.2005 is
null and void. The suit has been decreed holding that the said
sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff and restraining the
defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the
suit property. Aggrieved, M.Ramakrishna and others have
filed RFA No. 1523/2012.
3. O.S. No. 1544/2013 is filed by one Chandra Mohan
Reddy and others against Padmavathi and others praying
inter alia to declare that plaintiffs therein are the absolute
owner of the suit property. The said suit has been dismissed.
Aggrieved, Chandra Mohan Reddy has filed
RFA No. 1026/2017.
4. We have heard Shri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned
Senior Advocate for appellants1 and Shri. K. Suman, learned
Senior Advocate for respondent No.12 in RFA No. 1523/2012.
5. We have heard Shri. Ramdass, learned Senior
Advocate for appellant3, Shri. K. Suman, learned Senior
Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 8 4, Shri. Seshadri, learned
Advocate for respondents No. 9, Shri. Ganapathy Bhat,
learned Advocate for respondents No. 10 and 11, Shri.
K.N.Puttegowda, learned Advocate for respondents No. 12 &
13, and Shri. S.H. Prashanth, learned Advocate for the BBMP 5
in RFA No. 1026/2017.
6. Brief facts in R.F.A. No.1523/2012:
Plaintiff, Padmavathi had initially filed O.S. No.
2050/2006 seeking permanent injunction against the
Ramakrishna and others therein. She got the plaint amended
by adding a prayer to declare the Sale deed dated 26.08.2005
M. Ramakrishna and Others
Smt. V. Padmavathi
Shri. K. Chandra Mohan Reddy
Smt. V. Padmavathi and her legal heirs
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
is null and void. Padmavathi's case is, her mother has gifted
the suit property, a site measuring 80ft. x 120 ft. with a small
building thereon situated in Hebbal, Bengaluru. Upon the
request of Ramakrishna and others, she agreed to execute an
agreement for Joint Venture. On 26.08.2005, Ramakrishna
and others called upon her to go to the Sub-Registrar's office
to execute the JDA6. Subsequently, on 7.12.2005,
Ramakrishna and others approached Padmavathi and asked
her to vacate the suit property claiming that they had
purchased the property under the Absolute Sale Deed.
Padmavathi then learnt that Ramakrishna and others had
cheated her by obtaining a Sale deed instead of a JDA.
She approached the Police but the Police did not register her
complaint. Hence, she brought the instant suit for declaration.
7. Ramakrishna and others resisted the suit by
denying the plaint averments in their written statement
contending inter alia that they were in joint possession of the
suit property having purchased the same from Padmavathi
Joint Development Agreement
vide Sale Deed dated 26.08.2005 for a consideration of
Rs.32,33,500/-.
8. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has
framed following issues and additional issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff prove the possession of the suit
property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference as alleged
by the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. What order or decree
Additional issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants without
disclosing the contents of the joint development
agreement and by playing fraud on the plaintiff and
mis-representation obtained the signature of the plaintiff
on safe deed with malafide intention to grab the value of
the property of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?
3. Whether the defendants prove that presently
Sri Chandramohana Reddy and others are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the suit has no cause of action?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for?
9. On behalf of plaintiff/Padmavathi, she got
examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5.
On behalf of the defendants (Ramakrishna and others) no
evidence was let in. Answering issues No. 1 to 3 and the
additional issues No. 1 & 5 in the affirmative and additional
issues No. 2 to 4 in the negative, the Trial Court has decreed
the suit.
10. Brief facts in R.F.A. No.1026/2017:
It is averred by the plaintiffs, Chandra Mohan Reddy and
others that they had purchased the suit property from
Munivenkata Reddy, Ramakrishna and others (for the sake of
convenience, they shall be referred as Ramakrishna and
Others) under a Sale deed dated 15.03.2006. The said
Ramakrishna and others had purchased the property from
Padmavathi (defendant No.1). They had got their names
entered in the Municipal Records and the BBMP7 Khatha stood
in their name. One Shri. Ramanna and others (defendants No.
9, 10 & 11) started interfering claiming right over the suit
property contending inter alia that the suit property was
acquired by Padmavathi. Shri. Ramanna and others attempted
to trespass into the suit property on 24.09.2012 claiming
ownership over the suit property. Chandra Mohan Reddy had
also received a notice from BBMP stating that defendants
No.10 and 11 had jointly applied for transfer of khatha from
plaintiff's name into their name based on the gift deed
executed by Ramanna in favour of Yuvaraj8 and Nagaraj9.
Hence Chandra Mohan Reddy has filed O.S.No.1544/2013.
11. In response to summons, defendants No.1 to 8
filed joint written statement. Defendants No.10 and 11 filed
separate written statement and it was adopted by the
Defendant No.9. Defendant No.12 appeared through an
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
defendant No. 10 in O.S. No. 1544/2013
defendant No. 11 in O.S. No. 1544/2013
Advocate but did not file any written statement. Defendant
No.13 remained ex parte.
12. Padmavathi has averred in the written statement
that the suit property originally belonged to her mother
Muniyamma, who had gifted it to her under a Gift deed dated
30.03.1976. There were certain transactions between
defendants No.1 to 8 on one part and Ramanna on the other.
Suffice to note that Ramanna had filed O.S. No. 6777/2010
against Padmavathi and others seeking specific performance
of an Agreement to Sell the suit property and it ended in a
compromise before the Lok Adalat.
13. In substance, Padmavathi and others have averred
that they had sold the property to Ramanna; they had
received the entire sale consideration; that Ramakrishna and
others (defendants in O.S. No.2050/2006) had created a
bogus Sale deed by mis-representing to Padmavathi that it
was a JDA. Padmavathi's suit has been decreed declaring that
the Sale deed in favour of Ramakrishna and others was null
and void and not binding on Padmavathi.
14. Ramanna and his children (Yuvaraj and Nagaraj,
Defendants No.9 to 11 respectively) have stated in the written
statement that the property originally belonged to
Muniyamma who gifted it to Padmavathi and she had agreed
to sell the property to Ramanna but did not do so. Ramanna
filed O.S. No.6777/2010 for specific performance and the
same was decreed. After purchasing the property, Ramanna
gifted the same in favour of his children Yuvaraj and Nagaraj.
15. Based on the pleadings, following issues and
additional issue were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute
owners of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated
19.01.2011 is null void and is not binding on the
plaintiffs?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the gift deed dated
15.03.2011 is null and void and not binding on the
plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the confirmation deed
dated 01.06.2012 is null and void and not binding on the
plaintiffs?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants Nos.9to
11 are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration in respect of sale deed dated 19.01.2011
and gift deed dated 15.03.2011 and confirmation deed
dated 01.06.2012 as prayed in the plaint?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as
prayed in the plaint?
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property as well as defendants Nos.9 to 11 as prayed in
the plaint?
9. What order or decree?
Additional issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No.6777/10 dated 16.11.2010 passed by
this court is null and void and not binding on the
plaintiffs?
16. On behalf of the plaintiffs/Chandra Mohan Reddy
and others, Chandra Mohan Reddy was examined as P.W.1,
one Munivenkata Reddy as P.W.2 and one Balabhaskara
Reddy as P.W.3; and Exs. P1 to P17 were marked. On behalf
of the defendants, Nagaraj was examined as D.W.1, Ramanna
as D.W.2; and Exs. D1 to D34 have been marked.
17. Answering issues No. 1 to 8 and additional issue
No.1 in the negative, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.
18. Shri. Krishnamurthy, arguing in support of
RFA No.1523/2012 submitted that:
Padmavathi has indeed executed a Sale deed in
favour of Ramakrishna and others. The Sale deed
is dated 26.08.2005. As an afterthought,
Padmavathi has filed the instant suit on
13.03.2006 seeking only injunction;
Padmavati has not followed the proper procedure
prescribed while getting the plaint amended;
The suit is filed beyond three years, and it is
barred by limitation.
19. Shri. Ramdas, arguing in support of RFA
No.1026/2017 submitted that Padmavathi's suit (O.S.No.
2050/2006) is not maintainable; defendants No.9, 10 and 11
did not have any right over the suit property as on
13.03.2006 as it was already sold by Padmavati to
Ramakrishna and others.
20. Shri. K.Suman, supporting the impugned
judgments and decree submitted that:
On the pretext of getting a Joint Venture
registered, Ramakrishna and others got the Sale
Deed registered by playing fraud on Padmavathi.
Therefore, Sale Deed dated 26.08.2005 is null
and void;
the entire sale consideration of Rs.32,33,500/- is
allegedly paid by cash;
no details of payment and registration is
forthcoming in the written statement.
21. We have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records. In the light of the material on record, the
following points arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree in
Padmavathi's suit (O.S No. 2050/2006) calls for
interference?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree in Chandra
Mohan Reddy's suit (O.S.No.1554/2013) calls for
interference?
22. Marshalling of pleadings in both suits filed by
Padmavathi10 and Chandra Mohan Reddy11 reveals that:
on 26.08.2005, Padmavathi executed a Sale
Deed in favour of Ramakrishna and others;
according to Padmavathi, Sale Deed was taken
by misrepresenting her that it was a JDA;
on 13.03.2006, Padmavathi filed her suit
seeking declaration that Sale Deed was not
binding on her;
on 15.03.2006, Ramakrishna and others sold
the property to Chandra Mohan Reddy;
in 2010, one Ramanna filed O.S. No.
6777/2010 against Padmavathi seeking specific
performance of agreement in respect of suit
property and the suit was decreed;
on 19.01.2011, a Sale Deed was executed by
Padmavathi and her children in favour of
Ramanna;
after purchase, Ramanna gifted the property in
favour of his family members, Yuvaraj and
Nagaraj;
in 2013, Chandra Mohan Reddy filed his suit
against Padmavathi and others seeking
declaration that he is the owner of the suit
property and for declaration that Ramanna's
Sale Deed was not binding on him.
Re.Point No.(i):
23. Undisputed facts are Padmavathi has filed
O.S.No.2050/2006 on 13.03.2006 seeking only injunction
against the Ramakrishna and others. The plaint was later
amended on 22.01.2011 with an additional prayer seeking a
declaration that the Sale Deed dated 26.08.2005 was null and
void.
24. We have perused the said application for
amendment. We may record that the application is not
accompanied by a sworn affidavit.
25. Section 18(2) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of
Practice, 1967 reads as follows:
"18. Xxxxxxx
2. All facts, on which an applicant relies for making the
prayer or obtaining the relief sought in the application, shall be
set out in an affidavit accompanying the application. Where,
however, the facts on which the application is based appear from
the records of the case in the Court or relate to any act or
conduct of the applicant's pleader himself, the Court may permit
a memorandum of facts signed by the applicant's pleader to be
filed instead of an affidavit:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to file any affidavit
but only a memorandum of facts signed by the pleader in
interlocutory applications seeking any relief other than the reliefs
of temporary injunction, attachment, arrest, appointment of
guardian or the appointment of receiver or amendment of a
pleadings."
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. In the absence of a sworn affidavit, the application
for amendment ought to have been dismissed.
27. Therefore, the only prayer that required
adjudication was that of permanent injunction. It is well
settled that title follows possession. Once, the Sale Deed
dated 26.05.2005 executed by Padmavati in favour of the
Ramakrishna and others is not challenged in the manner
known to law, it attains finality and therefore, confers title in
favour of the defendants (Ramakrishna and others).
28. For the abovementioned reason, we answer Point
No.(i) in the affirmative and in favour of the defendants.
Re.Point No.(ii)
29. The case of Chandra Mohan Reddy and others is,
they had purchased the suit property from Munivenkata
Reddy and others (Ramakrishna and others) under a Sale
deed dated 15.03.2006. Chandra Mohan Reddy claims his title
from the sale deed dated 26.08.2005, whereunder Padmavati
had sold the suit property in favour of Munivenkata Reddy and
others.
30. As discussed above, the Sale Deed dated
26.05.2005 has attained finality and therefore, Chandra
Mohan Reddy being the bonafide subsequent purchaser is the
absolute owner of the suit property. Consequently, the Sale
Deed executed by Padmavathi and others (defendants No.1
to 8) in favour of Ramanna (defendant No.9) is not binding on
the plaintiff.
31. Learned Advocates on both sides relied upon some
authorities. In view of the undisputed facts recorded
hereinabove and settled legal position, we find it unnecessary
to deal with the authorities.
32. The learned Trial Judge has dismissed
Chandra Mohan Reddy's suit (O.S.No.1544/2013) on the basis
of the judgment in O.S.No.2050/2006. Since this court is of
the opinion that the decision in O.S.No.2050/2006 requires
interference; the judgment in O.S.No.1544/2013 also requires
interference. Resultantly, point No.(ii) is answered in the
affirmative.
32. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) R.F.A. No.1523/2012 and R.F.A. 1026/2017
are allowed with costs.
(ii) Suit in O.S.No. 2050/2006 is dismissed
with costs.
(iii) Suit in O.S. No. 1544/2013 is decreed with
costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS/POOJA/PREKSHA
