[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.A.C. Basavaraju vs Smt.B.A. Sandhya on 9 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
RSA No. 1490 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI A.C. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST
AVATHI HOBLI
CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK &
DISTRICT-577101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H MALATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. B.A. SANDHYA
by DEVIKA M W/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @
Location: HIGH LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
KARNATAKA
2. SRI N M CHARAN
S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @
LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
3. SRI N M NIKETHAN
S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @
LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
RSA No. 1490 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SMT. LAXMAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
5. SRI A C POORNESH
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST
AVATHI HOBLI
CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK &
DISTRICT-577101
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2022 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.55/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
RSA No. 1490 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the
Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction is that they are the absolute owners of
the suit schedule property and also they are in possession of
the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit but
the defendants have started to interfere with their possession
over the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the suit
summons, defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written
statement contending that the suit property was granted to late
Chennegowda under Saguvali Chit dated 27.07.1965 and
thereafter the said grant was confirmed on 19.03.1978. After
the death of Chennegowda, his legal heirs have executed sale
deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 13.05.1994 for valid
consideration and delivered all the title deeds to him.
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
Subsequently, the katha was changed to his name. The
property was a vacant land at the time of execution of the sale
deed. Subsequently, this defendant has cultivated this property
with coffee and also planted areca with silver oaks. It is
contended that the plaintiffs with an intention to make wrongful
gain have filed this false suit suppressing all the material facts.
The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property and averments made in the plaint are only with an
intention to knock off the suit property. The boundaries given in
the plaint is also wrong. The Government has made
correspondence with this defendant to exchange the
government land i.e., Sy.No.164/2, measuring 5 acres to the
hiduvali land of this defendant. The Government with an
assurance of grant in favour of this defendant has constructed
school building, Panchayath office and playground. The grant of
land in the name of this defendant is in progress. The plaintiffs
with an intention to disturb the process of grant, have filed the
false suit.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and also allowed the parties to
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
lead their evidence. Plaintiff No.3 examined as PW1 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand,
defendant No.2 examined DW1 and got marked the documents
at Ex.D1 to D9 and other defendants have not contested the
matter. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record held that sale was
made in the year 1994 itself and suit was filed in the year 2016
that too a sale deed was executed by the legal representatives
of Chennegowda including plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The GPA is also
produced at Ex.D1 and the same is not disputed. It is only
contended that GPA is obtained by playing fraud but the same
is also not substantiated by placing any cogent evidence. Apart
from that the sale was made in the year 1994 itself and all the
documents are also transferred thus, the plaintiffs have not in
possession of the suit schedule property from 1994 onwards.
Considering all these documents and oral evidence, dismissed
the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First
Appellate Court by plaintiff No.3.
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the
grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated
the Points and having reassessed both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, in paragraphs 13 and 14 comes
to the conclusion that it is not in dispute that land was granted
in favour of Chennegowda and after the death of
Chennegowda, his wife and one of his son have executed the
power of attorney as per Ex.D1 and in turn, the power of
attorney holder executed the sale deed in the year 1994 itself.
The First Appellate Court also taken note that sale was made in
the year 1994 and after 22 years, made an allegation of fraud
in obtaining the GPA and the same has not been explained in
detail in the plaint. There must be a clear averment in the
plaint with regard to the fraud is concerned but the same is not
found and no material is found. The First Appellate Court
particularly making an observation under Order VI Rule 4 of
CPC, the plaintiffs are required to plead the particulars of fraud.
But in the case on hand, except stating that defendants have
played fraud, nothing has been pleaded that is how the fraud
has been played. All these factors were taken note of by the
First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also relied upon
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PREM SINGH
AND OTHERS vs BIRBAL AND OTHERS reported in (2006)
5 SCC 353 wherein the Apex Court held that there is a
presumption that a registered document is validly executed
therefore, prima facie it would be valid in law. Further in the
case of VIMAL CHAND GHEVARCHAND JAIN vs RAMAKANT
EKANATH JADOO reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713 it is held
that registered deed of sale carries presumption that
transaction was genuine one. Having considered the revenue
records and sale deed at Ex.D4 produced by the defendants,
comes to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs falsifies
the case and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly
considered both oral and documentary evidence and confirmed
judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by concurrent
finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed
before this Court.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellant is that both the Courts have committed an error
in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. The
counsel would vehemently contend that the Chennegowda who
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
is the grantee died intestate and hence, all the family members
would have sign the sale deed dated 13.05.1994. The counsel
would vehemently contend that no proper stamp duty paid on
notarised GPA and based on the said GPA, sale was made. All
these factors were not taken note of by both the Courts. Hence,
this Court has to admit the appeal and to frame substantial
question of law.
7. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
considering the material on record particularly pleadings of the
plaintiffs, it discloses that the plaintiffs have not stated
anything about the sale deed executed in the year 1994,
whether it was come into their knowledge or not. But the fact is
that the sale deed was executed in the year 1994 itself and suit
was filed in the year 2016 i.e., after lapse of 22 years. When
the sale deed was executed, even the possession was also
parted with. The contention was taken by the appellant that
there was a fraud in getting the power of attorney but clear
averments are not found in the plaint with regard to the
manner in which fraud was played and except stating that there
was a fraud, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that the
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
sale deed was executed by the GPA holder which has been
signed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 but PW3 has not signed the
same. But the fact is that sale was made in the year 1994 and
while filing the suit, the age of plaintiff No.3 is mentioned as 45
years and not challenged the same immediately after the sale
within 3 years. Apart from that there was a delay in filing the
suit after the sale of the year 1994 and suit was filed in 2016
and no proper explanation with regard to the filing of the suit in
2016. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court while considering the material
on record and also taken note of the fact that all the original
documents of temporary Saguvali Chit and permanent Saguvali
Chit was also handed over and sale deed was also executed in
the year 1994 and RTC Extracts and Mutation Register Extracts
also clearly disclose that even subsequent to the sale of the
property, all revenue records are transferred in the name of
subsequent purchaser. When such both oral and documentary
evidence as well as question of fact and question of law was
considered by Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, I
do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame
substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51936
HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
