Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gowramma vs Sri.C.Rajagopal on 26 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
RFA No. 757 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O R.RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.A6-397,
1ST FLOOR, 2ND STAGE,
3RD PHASE, DOMLUR,
BENGALURU-560 071.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SUHAS GOWDA.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MUNIYAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. C.RAJAGOPAL
S/O LATE CHINNAKANNU,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.3/2, SHARADA VIDYA,
MANDIRA ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R BENGALURU-560 087.
Location: HIGH ... RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI.PANDURANGASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NATARAJ BABA.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED AT PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU, LISTED FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AT DHARWAD BENCH
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT
IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
RFA No. 757 of 2022
CAV JUDGMENT
Sri.Suhas Gowda.M, counsel on behalf of Sri.Muniyappa.,
for the appellant and Sri.Pandurangaswamy, counsel on behalf
of Sri.Nataraj Baba.K., for the respondent, appeared in person.
2. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred
to based on their status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The short facts are these:
The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration that
the sale deed dated 12.06.2012, obtained by the defendant, is
fraudulent and not binding on him and for a permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from creating any charge
over the suit schedule property. The defendant appeared
through her counsel and filed a written statement. The issues
were framed, the documents were marked, and the witnesses
were examined. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree
dated 25.02.2022 decreed the suit. Hence, the defendant has
filed this appeal under section 96 of the CPC.
4. Counsel appearing for the respective parties urged
several contentions.
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
Sri.Suhas Gowda.M, counsel for the appellant, submits
that the trial court's Judgment and Decree are perverse and
opposed to the facts and probabilities of the case.
Next, he submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove the
fraud.
A further submission is made that the finding on Ex.P.1 is
contrary to the material evidence on record. Counsel
vehemently contended that the Trial Court had erred in setting
aside the registered sale deed.
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are unsustainable in
law.
Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following
decision:
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU KOIL TRUST
VIRDHUNAGAR VS CHANDRAN AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2017 SC 1034.
Sri.Panduranga Swamy, Counsel for the respondent,
justified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Among
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
other contentions, he submitted that the Trial Court, in
extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly decreed
the suit. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the
decisions:
1. AKKAMMA AND OTHERS VS VEMAVATHI AND
OTHERS reported in (2021) 18 SCC 371.
2. NINGAWWA VS BYRAPPA SHIDDAPPA
HIREKNRABAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR
1968 SC 956.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal
papers with care.
6. The short point that would arise for my
consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial
Court require interference.
7. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the
plaintiff. The suit schedule property is a row house "A" type
bearing BDA Block No.A6-397, first floor, situated at Domalur
2nd Stage, 3rd Phase, Bangalore and measuring East to West
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
3.40 meters and North to South 10.10 meters for a total area
of 34.34 square meters. It was allotted to the plaintiff on lease
cum sale base by the BDA. The plaintiff had leased the
property to the defendant in 1997. The plaintiff was an
employee of HAL and due to ill-heath, he took voluntary
retirement in 2012. The plaintiff needed money because of
medical issues, so he had agreed to mortgage the property for
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. As the BDA had not executed an
absolute sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, he approached BDA
on 11.06.2012 and requested the authority to execute a sale
deed in his favor. Notably, the BDA executed an absolute sale
deed in favor of the plaintiff on 11.06.2012 and was registered
in No.BDA-1-00839/2012-2013, Book No.1, CD No.BDAD177
dated 12.06.2012 in the office of the Sub Registrar BDA. As the
plaintiff was unwell, the husband of the defendant accompanied
him to the office.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff executed a sale
deed in her favor, and she has become the absolute owner of
the property in question. However, the plaintiff denied the
same and contended that the transaction was void and the
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
defendant defrauded him. To say that a sale deed is obtained
by playing a fraud, one must take action.
A good deal of argument is canvassed on the aspect of
fraud. Counsel Sri.Suhas Gowda.M, in presenting his
arguments, strenuously urged that the plaintiff needed money,
and thus, he sold the property in favor of the defendant. On the
other hand, counsel Sri.Pandurang Swamy, submitted that the
defendant took advantage of and defrauded the plaintiff.
Before I answer the point about fraud, let us quickly
glance at fraud.
FRAUD: Fraud and mistake as grounds for relief are alike
founded on ignorance. There can be no mistake where there is
no ignorance; there can be no fraud where there is no mistake.
The Apex Court settled the law that a contract or other
transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void but only
voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is
avoided, the transaction is valid, so that third parties without
notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and
interests in the matter which they may enforce against the
party defrauded. The legal position will be different if there is
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of
the document but as to its character. Regarding the former, the
transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely
voidable.
I have examined the material on record in this case very
minutely. The plaintiff - initiated action for the cancellation of
the sale deed, contending that the defendant took advantage of
his illness and defrauded him. The defendant contended that
she had become the absolute owner of the property in question
under a sale deed dated 12.06.2012. To prove the same, she
has not produced an original copy of the sale deed.
8. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1. In his cross-
examination, he clearly stated that on 12.06.2012, he had been
to the office of Sub-Registrar, BDA, situated at Palace Guttalli.
He had denied that he had been to the Sub-Registrar's office at
Indira Nagar, Domalur. He had denied that he had executed a
sale deed.
The defendant was examined as DW-1, and she admitted
that in 2012, the plaintiff was unwell, and the suit property was
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
registered in the name of the plaintiff on 12.06.2012 in the
office of the Sub - Registrar, BDA.
9. To answer the controversy, the dates and the
printing hours of the deeds are quite relevant. The BDA
executed a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff on the 11th day of
June 2012 and was registered in the office of the Sub -
Registrar, BDA on the 12th day of June 2012 at 12:09 p.m. The
sale deed was printed at 1:14 p.m. in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, BDA. The defendant contends that on the same day,
the plaintiff executed a sale deed in her favor and was
registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar.
Ex.P.2 is a Xerox copy of the alleged sale deed. It reflects that
the deed was registered at 3:20 p.m. and printed at 3:28 p.m.
in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Shivajinagar.
10. It is not in dispute that the registration of the sale
deed executed by the BDA in favor of the plaintiff took place in
the office of the Sub-Registrar BDA. The alleged sale deed
executed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant was done on
the very same day in the Office of the Sub-Registrar
Shivajinagar. If one visualizes the scenario, it is hard to believe
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
that the plaintiff executed a sale deed on the very same day.
No doubt, because of the illness, the plaintiff at one point in
time intended to mortgage the property but he never intended
to part away with the property. He was deceived. Certain vague
contentions were raised by the defendant that there was an
agreement for the sale of the property, nonetheless, she had
failed to prove the same.
It is well known that fraud must be pleaded and proved.
In the present case, there is a pleading and evidence. The Trial
Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly
concluded that the plaintiff is true. There is nothing more than
this in the case. In my view what I have said as to the facts
and law, I think the contention of the plaintiff must prevail. I,
therefore, agree with the order passed by the Trial Court.
Counsel for the respective parties has cited several
decisions referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in
doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is
also tested in light of the aforesaid decisions.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12863
11. The appeal is devoid of merit. Resultantly, the
Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP
