Karnataka High Court
Sri Dharma Naik vs Sri Y N Manjunath on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
RSA No. 1019 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1019 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI DHARMA NAIK
S/O PEERYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND AGRICULTURAL
LABOUR, R/O DODDA MAGADI
MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE
TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH R NELKUDURI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI Y N MANJUNATH
S/O YALAVATTI NINGAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 60 YERS,
by PANKAJA S
BUSINESSMAN AND INDUSTRIALIST
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O KADAJJI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 001
2. SRI K R LAXMANA
S/O KENGA RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
CONTRACTOR AND AGRICULTURIST
R/O MAYAKONDA, DAVANAGERE
TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
RSA No. 1019 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.02.2019 PASSED IN
RA.NO.80/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.SEIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND V.MACT., DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.06.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.162/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the absolute
owner of land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.28/1
situated at Doddamagadi Village (for brevity, "the suit
scheduled property"). That he borrowed Rs.40,000/-
from defendant No.1, for which, as a security, defendant
No.1 insisted the plaintiff to execute a registered Sale
Deed. As such, he executed registered Sale Deed on
17.02.1993 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
HC-KAR
schedule property, which was considered as usufructory
mortgage. Thereafter, defendant No.1 sold the said
property to defendant No.2. After 20 years, the plaintiff
approached defendant No.1 to reconvey the suit schedule
property stating that he had executed only a nominal sale
deed and the possession was handed over only as
permissive possession. As defendant No.1 denied to
execute reconveyance deed, plaintiff filed the suit seeking
to declare the Sale Deed dated 17.02.1993 as nominal
Sale Deed and to direct the defendant to execute re-
conveyance deed in respect of suit schedule property.
3. Defendants appeared and contested the matter by
filing the written statement denying the averments of the
plaint and contending that the plaintiff sold the suit
schedule property for his family necessities to defendant
No.1 vide registered Sale Deed dated 17.02.1993 and as
such, defendant No.1 became the owner in possession of
suit schedule property till 10.08.2006, on which date, he
sold the suit schedule vide registered Sale Deed to
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
HC-KAR
defendant No.2 and ever since, defendant No.2 is the
owner in possession of suit scheduled property. As such,
the suit filed by the plaintiff nearly after 20 years of
execution of registered Sale Deed was barred by limitation
and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and
after considering the evidence and documents placed on
record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that
when the plaintiff, being the absolute owner in possession
of suit schedule property, had executed a registered Sale
Deed on 17.02.1993 in favour of defendant No.1, cannot
seek for declaration nearly after 20 years to declare the
said Sale Deed as nominal one and as such, the said Sale
Deed cannot be considered as usufructory mortgage deed.
Accordingly, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit as
barred by limitation.
5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re-
appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the
findings of the Trial Court and held that the registered Sale
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
HC-KAR
Deed cannot be considered as a usufructory mortgage
deed as the same is out and out sale and was registered
and as such, the suit has rightly been dismissed by the
Trial Court.
6. As could be seen from records, the plaintiff, being
the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property
had sold the same to defendant No.1 vide registered Sale
Deed dated 17.02.1993 and nearly after 20 years of
execution of Sale Deed filed the suit for declaring the said
Sale Deed as nominal Sale Deed since the same was
agreed between them as usufructory mortgage deed for a
period of 20 years. Though it was the case of the plaintiff
that he had availed loan of Rs.40,000/- from defendant
No.1 and for security of the same, defendant No.1 insisted
to execute a Sale Deed in respect of suit schedule
property, the plaintiff has failed to produce any document
to substantiate the said fact. On the other hand, defendant
No.1 proved that the plaintiff has sold the suit schedule
property in his favour for sale consideration of Rs.28,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
HC-KAR
vide registered Sale Deed dated 17.02.1993. As such,
since the said sale is out and out sale, cannot be
considered as usufructory mortgage deed. Nevertheless,
by virtue of said Sale Deed dated 17.02.1993, defendant
No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant
No.2 vide registered Sale Deed dated 10.08.2006. Even
after execution of the said Sale Deed, the plaintiff has
remained silent for a period of eight years and thereafter
filed the suit. As such, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be
granted. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered
view that both the Courts have correctly come to the
conclusion that the registered Sale Deed dated 17.02.1993
executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1
cannot be considered as usufructory mortgage deed and
declared as nominal sale deed that too nearly after 20
years of execution of the same.
7. In my view, there is absolutely no question of law,
muchless substantial question of law arises for
NC: 2025:KHC:46523
HC-KAR
consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
