Karnataka High Court
Vidyasagar vs Prabhavathi on 30 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
RSA No. 200492 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200492 OF 2024
(DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIDYASAGAR
S/O SIDRAM SADNANOOR
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HALLIKHED-B VILLAGE,
NOW AT TEACHER COLONY HUMNABAD
TQ.HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR - 585 330.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI SMT. PRABHAVATHI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
W/O LATE PANDARINATH HONNIKERI
KARNATAKA AGED: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WANJARI, HUMNABAD
TQ.HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR - 585 330.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.B. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
RSA No. 200492 of 2024
TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2020
BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, AT BIDAR
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.41/2013 BY
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, AT
HUMNABAD AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE
PLAINTIFF AND ALSO TO GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF TO WHICH
THE APPELLANT IS FOUND ENTITLED IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
2. This regular second appeal is by the
defendant challenging the concurrent findings given by
the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) in
O.S.No.41/2013 dated 12.03.2020 and the II-Additional
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
District and Sessions Court, Bidar, Sitting at
Basavakalyan (hereinafter referred to as 'the First
Appellate Court' for short) in R.A.No.59/2020 dated
20.06.2024, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for
declaration of her title to the suit schedule property, for
permanent injunction and recovery of possession came
to be decreed by the trail Court and the first appellate
Court dismissing the Regular Appeal filed by the
defendant.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the
absolute owner of suit schedule property and purchased
the same through registered sale deed dated
04.06.2012 for a sum of `1,56,000/- and has put up
construction of residential house and residing therein.
She has alleged that defendant concocted a sale deed
dated 25.08.2012 and his mother impersonated as
plaintiff and they got the sale deed executed. When she
came to know about it, she approached the accused and
questioned him. Defendant promising to get a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
cancellation deed executed, took her to the sub registrar
office, Humnabad on 08.11.2012 and manage to get a
document executed by the plaintiff as a consent deed by
playing fraud on her. Plaintiff came to known about it
only when she verified the TMC records. The original
documents dated 08.11.2012 and 25.08.2012 are in the
custody of defendant as he took them to get her loan
and hence the suit for declaration and injunction.
4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff got
the plaint amended alleging that during the pendency of
the suit defendant has dispossessed her and sought for
recovery of possession.
5. Defendant admit the ownership of the plaintiff
over suit schedule property vide sale deed dated
04.06.2012. However, he has claimed that she agreed
to sell the same to him and executed sale deed dated
25.08.2012. He has contended that on the date of
registration of document, since plaintiff was having
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
urgent work she went to Hallikhed-B and permitted her
sister to appear before the sub registrar and register the
document and accordingly sale deed came to be
executed. So far as consent deed dated 04.06.2012 is
concerned, the defendant has contended that later
plaintiff voluntarily approached the defendant and
admitting the sale deed, offered to execute a consent
deed and accordingly before the sub-registrar she has
executed the consent deed. Defendant also claimed
that he has constructed the residential house in the suit
schedule property and to make wrongful gain, plaintiff
has come up with a false case and sought for dismissal
of the suit.
6. The trial Court framed necessary issue and
additional issue.
7. At the trial, plaintiff examined herself as PW1
and one witness as PW2. She has relied upon Ex.P1
to 5.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
8. On the other hand, defendant examined as
DW1 and one of the attesting witness as DW2 and got
marked Ex.D1 to 8.
9. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted
declaration that the sale deed dated 25.08.2012 and
consent deed dated 08.11.2012 are null and void and
cancelled them. It ordered for recovery of possession of
suit schedule property and directed the defendant hand
over the possession within a period of 30 days from the
date of decree.
10. Aggrieved by the same, defendant approach
the first appellate Court in R.A.No.59/2020, which also
came to be dismissed.
11. Challenging both the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court and first appellate Court,
defendant has approached this Court contending that
both Courts have failed to appreciate the cogent and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
convince evidence lead by the defendant. In the
absence of any convincing evidence, they have erred in
holding that the construction of house in the suit
schedule property is made by the plaintiff, only on the
basis of testimony of PW2.
12. Heard arguments and perused the records.
13. It is not in dispute that plaintiff purchased suit
schedule property when it was vacant site through
registered sale deed dated 04.06.2012 for `1,56,000/-.
It is the specific case of the defendant that plaintiff
agreed to sell the same to him for `1,56,000/- and
executed sale deed dated 25.08.2012. Certainly a
doubtful arise as to why within a period of two months
plaintiff would decide to sell the site purchased by her
for the same value, especially when she has incurred
expenses for registration etc,.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
14. According to the defendant himself, when the
sale deed dated 25.08.2012 was registered, plaintiff was
not present and as per the written statement averments
she had authorized her sister to appear before the sub
registrar and get the document registered. Admittedly
there is no written authentication given by plaintiff to
her sister to register the document in question.
However, the evidence on record disclose that it was the
mother of the defendant who impersonated as plaintiff
and got the sale deed registered.
15. Both the trial Court as well as first appellate
Court found the evidence lead by the defendant
regarding the payment of sale consideration and
execution of the document not reliable trust worthy. So
far the evidence on behalf of the defendant regarding
the consent deed dated 08.11.2012 also, both courts
held that the defendant has failed to establish the same.
They held that it is the plaintiff who has constructed the
residential house on suit schedule property and she was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:674
dispossessed by the defendant during the pendency of
the suit and this fact is admitted by the DW2. The
findings of the fact by the trial Court as well as the first
appellate Court is just and proper and it is consistent
with the evidence placed on record. This court finds no
perversity in the conclusions arrived at by them.
16. Certainly no question of law much less
substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly the same
stand dismissed.
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending IAs, if
any, stand disposed off as no further order is required.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
SMP
