Karnataka High Court
Sri C Nagaraj vs Smt Geetha on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
RFA No. 520 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI C NAGARAJ
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
@ CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO 138, BENGALURU THOTADA MANE
REDIHALLI ROAD, KASABA HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK-563 114.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOKESH BOOVANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETHA
Digitally
signed by W/O SRINIVASAN K
RUPA V D/O N KANCHANAMALA
Location: AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
High Court
Of Karnataka
2. SMT. N KANCHANAMALA
W/O HANUMANTHARAJU
AGE ABOUT 73 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO 40
NRI LAYOUT, PHASE 2
12TH CROSS GREEN GARDEN
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 016.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
RFA No. 520 of 2021
HC-KAR
(R1 & R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE BY WAY OF PAPER
PUBLICATION-DULY SERVED(SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)-
VICE COURT ORDER DATED 05.11.2024)
---
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 ORDER XLI RULE
1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 and
Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the
plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2021
passed in O.S.No.120/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, KGF.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the appellant filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration to
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
declare that the sale deed dated 11.07.2019 is void, further
direction to the Sub-Registrar, Bangarpet, to cancel the same
by directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute the
registered cancellation of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and
for permanent injunction. It is averred that the plaintiff is a
resident of Bangarpet and he maintains a temple wherein the
defendants used to visit and they developed friendship with the
plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff helped the
defendants in purchase of certain properties. There were some
financial transactions between them and the defendants by
misrepresentation and fraud obtained the sale deed on
11.07.2019 for which no consideration was paid. Hence, the
plaintiff sought the relief for cancellation of the sale deed.
3. The defendants were served with summons but
they remained absent and were placed ex parte.
4. The Trial Court recorded the evidence. The plaintiff
examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. The
Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence has recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove
the case by cogent evidence that the sale deed is obtained by
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
fraud and proceeded to dismiss the suit. Being aggrieved, the
plaintiff is in appeal.
5. Sri.Lokesh Boovanahalli, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a
grave error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record and came to an incorrect conclusion that the plaintiff
has failed to examine the Bank Manager to establish that the
defendants have not paid the sale consideration. It is
submitted that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the
sale deed obtained by the defendant is by fraud and in the
absence of evidence from the other side, the Court ought to
have believed the version of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.
It is further submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is illiterate, no
Demand Draft has been given to the appellant and without any
consideration, the sale deed has been executed by the
defendants. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by decreeing
the suit as prayed.
6. The respondents, though served, remained absent.
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree
calls for any interference?"
9. The aforesaid point is answered in the negative for
the following reasons:
a) The case of the appellant before the Trial Court was
that the plaintiff was maintaining the temple at Bangarpet
where the defendants used to visit and hence they got
acquainted each other. The plaintiff developed confidence in
the defendants and thereafter, they had various financial
transactions depending on the needs. It is specifically averred
that the plaintiff helped the defendants in purchasing the
property at Karahally. The defendants obtained the loan from
the plaintiff in the year 2017 which they returned with
additional money. It is further averred that the plaintiff
purchased the suit schedule property from Sri.Nanda and his
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
wife vide registered sale deed dated 28.01.2016. It is also
averred that a loan was obtained from Canara Bank for
development of the property. It is contended that the
defendants, in the month of July 2019 approached the plaintiff,
insisted him to execute some document before the Sub-
Registrar which was required to be produced before the Income
Tax Authority and believing the words, the plaintiff affixed his
LTM as he is an illiterate person and thereafter, he came to
know that the defendants fraudulently got the sale deed
executed. It is further contended that the sale consideration
shown in the sale deed is Rs.15,40,286/- and out of the said
amount, Rs.5,00,000/- is shown as being paid during the
intermediate period and the remaining balance was paid by way
of Demand Draft. A perusal of the covenant in the sale deed
dated 11.07.2019 which is a disputed document clearly
indicates that Rs.5,00,000/- is shown to have been paid by the
defendants to the plaintiff on different dates and remaining
Rs.10,40,286/- was paid by way of Demand Draft bearing
No.000606 dated 11.07.2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Bangarpet
Branch.
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
b) The assertion of the plaintiff with regard to taking
him to the Sub-Registrar's office by the defendants, asking him
to affix his LTM on certain documents which he understood as
the documents required for income tax purpose, has been
rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court as the perusal of the sale
deed clearly indicates that the title of the document is written
as sale deed and the plaintiff being a businessman, cannot be
called as an illiterate person to the transaction. The plaintiff
knowing fully well that the document was a sale deed,
participated in the process of registration before the jurisdiction
of Sub-Registrar and thereafter, the property was conveyed by
a valid instrument. The aforesaid assertion of the plaintiff in
his oral evidence is required to be considered as a self-serving
statement without any corroborative evidence to believe such
an assertion. Though the plaintiff produced Exs.P1 to P26, it
does not establish the fact that the sale deed was executed by
the defendants by fraudulent means. The records indicate that
the major portion of the sale consideration is paid by way of
Demand Draft. Nothing had prevented the plaintiff to examine
the Manager of the Bank to establish that the sale consideration
is not paid and the Demand Draft was not encashed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
plaintiff. The plaintiff has also made certain assertions with
regard to the financial transactions between him and the
defendants. However, no evidence to that effect is placed
before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly
disbelieved the version of the plaintiff with regard to the earlier
transactions. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit
based on the pleadings and evidence in the absence of any
rebuttable evidence, is required to be rejected.
c) The Trial Court, taking into consideration the
pleading, framed the issues and the plaintiff adduced oral
evidence and produced documentary evidence. After
considering the material available on record, it has come to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the
defendants fraudulently got the sale deed executed from the
plaintiff without any sale consideration and proceeded to
dismiss the suit. On appreciation of the pleading and evidence
on record, we fully concur with the findings recorded by the
Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has
failed to prove the case for grant of relief sought in the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:44141-DB
HC-KAR
10. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is
accordingly, rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory
application is also disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
