Karnataka High Court
Syed Hameed S/O Late Syed Hameed And Ors vs Mirza Hameed Ali Baig S/O Late Mirza ... on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5717
RSA No. 200113 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200113 OF 2021
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SYED HAMEED S/O LATE SYED HAMEED,
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MANIYAR TALEEM, TALGHAT DARWAZA,
BIDAR-585 401.
2. SYED WAJID S/O LATE SYED HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIYAR TALEEM, TALGHAT DARWAZA,
BIDAR-585 401.
3. SMT. FARZAN D/O LATE SYED HAMEED,
W/O FAZAN KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed R/O. MANIYAR TALEEM, TALGHAT DARWAZA,
by RENUKA BIDAR-585 401.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SMT. FARHAN D/O LATE SYED HAMEED,
KARNATAKA W/O. SYED SIRZA,
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIYAR TALEEM, TALGHAT DARWAZA,
BIDAR-585 401.
5. SYED ARIF S/O LATE MOHD. HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MANIYAR TALEEM, TALGHAT DARWAZA,
BIDAR-585 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5717
RSA No. 200113 of 2021
AND:
MIRZA HAMEED ALI BAIG,
S/O LATE MIRZA ABDULLA BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: MOTORCYCLE MECHANIC,
R/O. PANSAL TALEEM, BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE FIRST
APPELLATE COURT IN R.A.NO.39/2016 DATED 19-08-2020
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, THEREBY TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN
O.S.NO.242/2006 DATED 11-08-2016 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BIDAR AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS
IN ENTIRETY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
The suit for declaration and injunction claiming
ascertaining the title, possession and interference by the
defendant is dismissed on the premise the title deed of year
1974, on which the suit is based is not a registered document.
The plaintiffs appeal before the First Appellate Court is again
unsuccessful on the said premise that the unregistered sale
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5717
deed of 1974 is inadmissible in evidence, up-hold the claim of
title and possession. The plaintiffs are before this Court in this
regular second appeal. The plaintiffs are not in position to show
as to how the title can be declared based on unregistered sale
deed.
2. Sri.Ravi B Patil., learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would contend that the appellants is in possession of
the shed wherein, he is running a motorcycle garage. It is his
further submission that the said shed is located in the suit
property bearing Survey No.6/1 and 2 of Mahilet Ghirabee
village of Bidar Taluk.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would contend that the respondent has purchased the property
under registered sale deed. The defendant would contend that
he has purchased the property under a registered sale deed of
1982 from one Prem Kumar S/o Devidas and it is also his
contention that the said property is bearing No.12-1-179/11 is
described as plot No.1. The photographs are produced before
that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. No
revenue record is produced to show that the appellants is in
possession of the suit property. The shed is found in the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5717
photograph is concerned, it is not established in which survey
number the said shed is located. Learned counsel for the
respondent would contend that the appellant has encroached
the portion infront of the property purchased by the respondent
and frontage is obstructed to some extent on account of the
said construction.
4. Since this Court is considering the second appeal
based on the claim of the plaintiff which is based on
unregistered document of sale, this Court is of the view that,
no substantial question of law is made out to interfere with the
concurrent finding of the Trail Court as well as First Appellate
Court.
5. As far as the shed which is said to be in possession
of the plaintiff/appellant is concerned, it is to the parties to
seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
KBM
CT:PK
