Karnataka High Court
Laxuman S/O Pundaiah Bacha vs Syed Ahmed Moiuddin Quadri S/O Late ... on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
RSA No. 7127 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.7127 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. LAXUMAN S/O. PUNDAIAH BACHA,
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS
1A) LALEETA BAI W/O. LAXUMAN BACHA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
1B) NAGBHUSHAN @ NAGRAJ
S/O. LAXUMAN BACHA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
1C) DR. SRINIVAS S/O. LAXUMAN BACHA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI ALL R/O. VIDYANAGAR COLONY, BIDAR,
Location: HIGH TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR-585401.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. B. BHARATRAJ
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS.
2A) BRUMARAMBA W/O. LATE BHARATRAJ,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2B) RAGHVENDRA S/O. LATE BHARATRAJ,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
2C) VISHNU PRIYA S/O. LATE BHARATRAJ,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
RSA No. 7127 of 2012
HC-KAR
ALL R/O. VIDYANAGAR COLONY,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR-585401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE
FOR A1(A) TO A1(C) AND A2(A) TO A2(C))
AND:
1. SYED AHMED MOHIUDDIN QUADRI
S/O. LATE ZAHURUDDIN QUADRI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1A) SYED NOOR MUSTAFA QUADRI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. 107-2, MALLATHAHALLI
JANATHA COLONY,
BANGALORE, SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560056.
1B) SYED MUDASSIR FATIMA QUADRI,
W/O. ANWAR KHAN
D/O. SYED AHMED MOHIUDDIN QUADRI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NO.140, 2ND CROSS RAJU COLONY,
OPPOSITE TO ARABIC COLLEGE
RASHAD NAGAR VTC,
BANGALORE NORTH PO. ARABIC COLLEGE,
DISTRICT: BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560045.
1C) SYEDA MOIZ FATIMA QUADRI
W/O. SYED WASEEM AHMED
D/O. SYED AHMED MOHIUDDIN QUADRI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 29, 2ND CROSS, 250 A BLOCK,
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH,
ARABIC COLLEGE, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED FAYAZUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(C))
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
RSA No. 7127 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO BE ALLOWED BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2012
PASSED IN R.A.NO.88/2010 PASSED IN FAST TRACK COURT-1
BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY RESOTRE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 13.06.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.166/1995 BY
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) BIDAR, WITH COST
THROUGHOUT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
17.11.2025 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned second appeal is by legal heirs of
defendant No.1/Laxuman and defendant No.2/B. Bharatraj
assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2012
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
passed by Fast Track Court-I, Bidar in RA No.88/2010 in
reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2005
passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bidar in OS
No.166/1995 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff,
thereby declaring plaintiff as absolute owner and in
possession of suit land.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff's case was that
one Shah Nizamuddin was the original owner of
agricultural land bearing Sy.No.102 measuring 8 acres 32
guntas situated at Chidri village. It was specifically
contended that Shah Nizamuddin had made an oral gift
(hiba) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 32 guntas out
of the said land, which portion now forms the suit
property. The plaintiff further asserted that the suit
property consists of a Mazar and a tiled house, and that
pursuant to the oral gift, he has been in exclusive
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
possession of the said property. The plaintiff also claimed
that in the year 1989, upon verification of the revenue
records, he noticed that the name of one Das S/o
Siddappa had been mutated in the record of rights in
respect of the entire land, including the suit property, even
though Das had purchased only 8 acres. Based on the
alleged oral gift, the plaintiff asserted title over 32 guntas
and instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of
absolute ownership and a consequential decree of
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with his possession.
4. The original defendants entered appearance
upon service of summons and filed their written
statement, denying the entire case of the plaintiff.
According to the defendants, Sy.No.102 originally
measured 9 acres 32 guntas. Out of that, 1 acre 26 guntas
was acquired by the Air Force Authority. The remaining
extent, according to the defendants, was alienated by
Shah Nizamuddin in favour of Das under a registered sale
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
deed of 1971. Das is stated to have subsequently
conveyed the entire remaining extent of 8 acres 32 guntas
in favour of the original defendants. Thus, the defendants
contended that the plaintiff had neither title nor
possession.
5. The Trial Court framed issues and permitted the
parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. Upon
consideration, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2
in the negative, holding that the plaintiff had failed to
establish title or possession over the suit land measuring
32 guntas. Consequently, the issue regarding alleged
interference was also answered against the plaintiff. While
doing so, the Trial Court relied on Ex.P-10, the sale deed
executed by the original owner, and held that since 1 acre
26 guntas had been acquired by the Air Force Authority
and the remaining 8 acres sold to Das, the plaintiff's claim
of an oral gift could not stand. The Court also noted the
plaintiff's admission in cross-examination that the original
extent of Sy.No.102 was 9 acres 32 guntas. Referring to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
the registered sale deeds in favour of Das and
subsequently the defendants, the Trial Court held that the
alleged oral gift (Ex.P-1) did not confer any valid title. The
suit was accordingly dismissed.
6. The First Appellate Court, on reappraisal of the
entire evidence, reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.
It allowed the appeal on the reasoning that since
defendant No.1 was asserting title and possession over an
extent exceeding 8 acres, it necessarily followed that the
plaintiff must have title over the "excess extent" of 32
guntas. On this basis, the Appellate Court decreed the
suit, declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of 32 guntas
and granting consequential reliefs. The defendants, now
represented by their legal heirs, have preferred the
present second appeal challenging the reversal.
7. This Court admitted the second appeal and
framed the following substantial questions of law:
"i) Whether the lower Appellate court despite
arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff had
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
failed to prove the gift and execution of the
valid document and also taking note that the
document at Ex.P-1 was not a valid one, was
justified in ultimately reversing the finding of
the Trial Court and decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff?
ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court has
committed an error in laying stress on the
weakness of the defendants rather than
concentrating on the case as sought to be put
for the by the plaintiff more particularly when
the plaintiff was seeking a declaration relating
to the right claimed to own the immovable
property?"
Finding on substantial question Nos. i and ii :
8. Before this Court delves into the matter in view
title documents produced by both parties, this Court
deems it fit to cull out the flow of title chart, which would
enable this Court to ascertain whether the original owner
Shah Nizamuddin had retained any portion on property
bearing Sy.No.102. The chart is as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
Sy.No.102 (9 acres 32 guntas)
Original owner (Shah Nizamuddin)
Air Force authority acquired 1 acre 26 guntas
(vide Ex.D-4- Requisition to hand over acquired land by
Air Force authority)
Remaining extent 8 acres 6 guntas
8 acres sold to C.S. Das (vide Ex.P-10 dated 07.04.1971)
C. S. Das sold to Laxman (father of defendants)
(8 acres 32 guntas, vide Ex.P-11, dated. 07.06.1977)
9. The plaintiff is tracing title through original
owner Shah Nizamuddin to the extent of 32 guntas.
Plaintiff is asserting that original owner Shah Nizamuddin
has orally gifted 32 guntas of said land, followed by a sale
deed in the year 1993. The flow chart, which is extracted
supra discloses that agricultural land bearing Sy.No.102
originally measured 9 acres 32 guntas. Defendants by
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
placing reliance on Ex.D-4 are able to demonstrate that
the Air-force authority acquired 1 acre 26 guntas.
Therefore after acquisition, Shah Nizamuddin retained a
portion measuring 8 acres 6 guntas. The rebuttal evidence
laid by defendant No.1 also reveals that Shah Nizamuddin
alienated 8 acres of land in favour of C. S. Das under the
registered sale deed dated 07.04.1971 at Ex-P 10. Das in
turn however conveyed Survey No.102 measuring 8 acres
32 guntas, though had purchased only 8 acres.
10. The Appellate Court probably got swayed away
by the sale deed obtained by defendant No.1/Laxuman to
an extent of 8 acres 32 guntas, when his vendor Das had
purchased only 8 acres. It is probably in this context
Appellate Court has ventured in examining the title of
defendant No.1 and while doing so the Appellate Court has
proceeded to hold that first defendant's vendor namely
Das had purchased only 8 acres and therefore, he could
not have sold 8 acres 32 guntas.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
11. The Appellate Court probably has misread the
entire evidence on record, though defendants may not
have acquired title to an extent of 8 acres 32 guntas, while
obtaining the sale deed from Das. However, the core
question which required attention of the Appellate Court
was whether the original owner Shah Nizamuddin had
retained any portion of the land, in view of acquisition of 1
acre 26 guntas by the Air-force authority and an alienation
in favour of Das to an extent of 8 acres. After deducting 1
acre 26 guntas acquired by Air-force authority and 8 acres
purchased by Das, what would remain is 6 guntas. Both
the parties in unequivocal terms admit that the remaining
6 guntas is a Mazar, where there are burials and there is
one old room. Therefore, original owner Shah Nizamudhin
had not at all retained any portion in Sy.No.102, having
alienated the balance extent of 8 acres, after the
acquisition by the airport authorities. The sale deed
obtained by Das vide Ex-P 10 clearly demonstrate that
Shah Nizamuddin at the most was in possession of the 6
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
guntas of Mazar, which cannot be alienated, in view of
there being a Mazar in the said 6 guntas. Therefore,
original owner Shah Nizamuddin could not have orally
conveyed 32 guntas in Sy.No.102.
12. In the background of these significant details,
this Court needs to examine whether the Appellate Court
has misread the title documents produced by both the
parties and whether the Appellate Court has adhered to
the mandate provided under Order XLI Rule 30 and 31 of
CPC.
13. It is settled principle of law that in suit for
declaration of ownership, the burden squarely lies on the
plaintiff to establish his title to the suit property and he
must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on
the weakness of the defendant's case. The Apex Court in a
landmark judgment rendered in the case of Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 has
clearly held that a plaintiff seeking declaration of title must
establish that he has a valid and a subsisting title to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
property. The burden of proof in a declaration suit is
always on the plaintiff. The failure of defendant to
establish his title does not automatically result in a decree
in favour of plaintiff.
14. In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal
that:
i. The original owner, Shah Nizamuddin, held 9
acres 32 guntas.
ii. Out of this, 1 acre 26 guntas was acquired by
the Air-force authority.
iii. An extent of 8 acres was sold under a
registered sale deed to Das.
iv. A further portion of 6 guntas is admittedly
occupied by a Mazar and an old structure.
15. It is trite law that under Section 7 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only a person "competent
to contract and entitled to transferable property, or
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
authorised to dispose of it not his own," can make a valid
transfer. Further, Section 8 provides that a transfer passes
to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is
then capable of passing in the property and in the legal
incidents thereof. Thus, the competency of the transferor
is determined as on the date of transfer, and once an
owner has alienated his entire interest, he ceases to have
any right, title, or interest to convey subsequently,
whether by sale, gift, or otherwise.
16. In the present case, the evidence clearly
discloses that Shah Nizamuddin, having sold 8 acres of
land to C. Das, and a further 1 acre 26 guntas having been
acquired by the Air-force authority, besides 6 guntas
forming part of a Mazar, had not retained any portion of
the original 9 acres 32 guntas. Consequently, he was not
competent in law to effect any transfer oral or written
thereafter in respect of the alleged residual 32 guntas.
17. The law is well settled that no person can
transfer a better title than he himself possesses
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
encapsulated in the maxim "nemo dat quod non habet." In
Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (Dead) by LRs,
(2007) 2 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"Once the transferor has divested himself of
ownership by a valid conveyance, he cannot
thereafter confer any title upon another
person, for the transferor cannot transfer
what he does not possess."
18. Similarly, in Rajendra Singh v. Santa Singh,
(1973) 2 SCC 705, the Supreme Court reiterated that:
"The vendor having already conveyed his
entire interest in the property, the subsequent
sale executed by him was void and conveyed
no title."
19. In Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court further
observed that only a person having present, subsisting
title can effect a valid transfer under the Transfer of
Property Act.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
20. Applying these settled principles, it is manifest
that once Shah Nizamuddin parted with his entire interest
in the property, he was divested of ownership and ceased
to be "a person entitled to transferable property" under
Section 7. The alleged oral gift in favour of the plaintiff,
even if assumed to be made, is therefore void ab initio, as
it emanated from one who lacked the requisite
competence and ownership to transfer.
21. Thus, the entirety of the land stands accounted
for. Once it is shown that the total extent of 9 acres 32
guntas was either sold, acquired, or occupied by a Mazar,
no residual extent of 32 guntas remained with Shah
Nizamuddin to gift or convey to the plaintiffs.
22. The alleged oral gift is also not substantiated by
any cogent evidence there is no record of delivery of
possession, no corroborating witnesses to the declaration
of gift, and no mutation or revenue entry recognizing the
same.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
23. The Appellate Court, therefore, committed a
serious error in presuming title in favour of the plaintiff
merely because the defendants claimed possession in
excess of 8 acres. Such reasoning is contrary to settled
principles of law and amounts to perversity, as it
effectively shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to
the defendant.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court are wholly unsustainable in law and on
facts. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the
settled legal principles governing suits for declaration of
title, and its findings are vitiated by perversity for the
following reasons:
(i) The Appellate Court erroneously shifted the
burden of proof onto the defendants by presuming
that the plaintiff had title merely because the
defendants claimed possession over an extent
exceeding 8 acres. Such an approach is directly
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
contrary to the settled law that the plaintiff must
succeed on the strength of his own title, and not on
the weakness of the defendant's case.
(ii) The Appellate Court completely ignored the
undisputed documentary evidence which clearly
established that the entire extent of 9 acres 32
guntas stood accounted for 1 acre 26 guntas through
acquisition by the Air Force, 8 acres through a
registered sale deed in favour of Das, and 6 guntas
comprising a Mazar and an old structure. Once these
facts stood proved, the very foundation of the alleged
oral gift collapsed, as no land remained with the
transferor.
(iii) The Appellate Court failed to apply Sections 7
and 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and
overlooked the binding principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardev Singh, Rajendra
Singh, and Suraj Lamp (supra) which unequivocally
hold that a transferor who has divested himself of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
ownership is not competent to effect any further
transfer. The alleged oral gift, therefore, was void ab
initio.
(iv) The Appellate Court's conclusion that the plaintiff
had proved title is unsupported by any admissible or
cogent evidence. In fact, there is no evidence of
delivery of possession, no corroborating witnesses to
the alleged oral gift, and no mutation or revenue
entry recognizing it. The Appellate Court's finding is
therefore speculative, contrary to the record, and
perverse.
(v) The Appellate Court has ignored the categorical
admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the
plaintiff, as well as the registered documents forming
the chain of title, all of which pointed to a complete
absence of any residual extent that could have been
gifted to the plaintiff.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
(vi) In light of the above glaring infirmities, this
Court is constrained to hold that the findings of the
First Appellate Court suffer from perversity, are
contrary to the documentary evidence on record, and
are based on an erroneous reversal of the burden of
proof. The judgment and decree of the Appellate
Court cannot be sustained.
25. From above it is seen that, the finding of the
Appellate Court that the plaintiff has established his title
over the 32 guntas of land is perverse, palpably erroneous
and contrary to title documents. Accordingly point no.1 is
answered in 'negative' and point no.2 in 'affirmative'.
26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the
following:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7277
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The captioned Second Appeal, filed by the
legal heirs of defendant No.1 - Laxuman
and defendant No.2 - B. Bharatraj, calling
in question the judgment and decree dated
28.02.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-
I, Bidar in R.A. No.88/2010, is hereby
allowed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 28.02.2012
passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Bidar in
R.A. No.88/2010 is set aside.
iii. The judgment and decree dated 13.06.2005
passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Bidar in O.S. No.166/1995 is
restored.
iv. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
