Karnataka High Court
Putalabai W/O Late Sharanappa By ... vs Halim Bee W/O Abdul Khadar By Lrs ... on 21 June, 2023
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:1361
RSA No. 200079 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200079 OF 2021 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
PUTALABAI W/O LATE SHARANAPPA
BY LRS
1) NAGAMMA D/O LATE SHARANAPPA,
AGE 47 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
2. KAMALABAI D/O SHARANAPPA
W/O APPARAYA, AGE : 69 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O TAJSULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST : KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI MANJUNATH GINNI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.HEMA
SACHIN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF L.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
Smt.HALIM BEE W/O ABDUL KHADAR
BY LRS ABDUL RAZAK SHABEER ALI
BY LRS
1) ABDUL MAJEED S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK,
AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.6-330/2, NEAR AZID FUNCTION HALL,
MOMINPURA, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:1361
RSA No. 200079 of 2021
2. ABDUL LATEEF S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK,
AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 6-330/2, NEAR AZID FUNCTION HALL,
MOMINPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. ABDUL SALEEM S/O ABDUL RAZAK,
AGE : 34 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 6-330/2, NEAR AZID FUNCTION HALL,
MOMINPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. NAZIR AHMED S/O LATE SHABEER ALI,
AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 6-330/2, NEAR AZID FUNCTION HALL,
MOMINPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
5. GULAM GOUS S/O LATE SHABEER ALI,
AGE : 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 6-330/2, NEAR AZID FUNCTION HALL,
MOMINPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
6. MUDASEER ALI S/O LATE SHABEER ALI,
AGE : 32 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 6-330/2, NEAR AZID FUNCTION HALL,
MOMINPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
19.11.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.09/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KALABURAGI IN O.S.NO.483/2012 DATED 29.11.2018 AND TO
DECREE THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:1361
RSA No. 200079 of 2021
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by the legal representatives of
the first plaintiff and by the second plaintiff.
2. Plaintiffs, Putalabai and Kamalabai, who were the wife
and daughter of Sharanappa, instituted a suit seeking
for declaration that the sale-deeds dated 04.03.1970
and 29.05.1970 executed by Sharanappa was null and
void and were not binding on them. They also sought
for recovery of possession and to restrain the
defendants from withdrawing the compensation from
the Government which was acquired the lands.
3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Sharnappa had
purchased eight agricultural properties on 03.03.1970
and on the very next day, a sale-deed had been
created by one Hanamanthappa as if he had purchased
four items i.e., Sy.No.148, 149, 152 and 166 i.e., the
suit properties.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:1361
RSA No. 200079 of 2021
4. It was also stated that thereafter on 29.10.1970,
Hanumanthappa had sold the said properties in favour
of Halima Bee - the defendant, and therefore it was
necessary that the sale-deeds by which title was
alleged to have been acquired by Hanumantahppa and
thereafter conveyed to Halima Bee were required to be
declared as null and void.
5. The Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and
the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
had been unable to prove that the sale-deed dated
04.03.1970 executed in favour of Hanamanthappa was
obtained by impersonating Sharanappa and it also
therefore held that the prayer for declaration that the
sale-deeds did not bind on them could not be granted.
It also held that the sale deed executed in favour of
Halima Bee i.e., the defendant would be binding on the
plaintiffs.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:1361
RSA No. 200079 of 2021
6. The plaintiffs being aggrieved preferred an appeal. The
Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence
found no reason to disagree with the findings recorded
by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court found that the
conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court could not be
found fault with and accordingly proceeded to dismiss
the appeal.
7. Being aggrieved by these concurring judgments, this
second appeal has been preferred.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there
was abundant evidence to indicate that the sale-deed
obtained by the Hanamanthappa was by way of
impersonation and therefore both the Courts had erred
in refusing the prayer of the plaintiffs.
9. It is to be stated here that the suit filed by the wife and
daughter of Hanamanthappa was on 01.10.2012. In
other words, nearly 42 years after a sale-deed had
been executed by Sharanappa in favour of
NC: 2023:KHC-K:1361
RSA No. 200079 of 2021
Hanamanthappa in 1970 and Hanamanthappa had in
turn sold the property to Halima Bee, the present suit
had been filed. It is therefore clear that the suit filed
nearly 42 years after the sale-deed, was not
maintainable.
10. Both the Courts on appreciation of the evidence have
come to the conclusion that the assertions of the
plaintiffs regarding impersonation have not been
proved. Having regard to the fact that on appreciation
of evidence, both the Courts have recorded a finding
of fact, no question of law, muchless a substantial
question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
