10. This Court has meticulously examined the
original title deed dated 16.04.1937 marked at Ex.D.4,
under which the plaintiff's mother, Smt. Ankamma,
purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.107 totally
measuring 6 acres 3¾ guntas. Thus, there is no dispute
that the entire extent of land bearing Sy.No.107 originally
vested in Smt.Ankamma. The chain of alienations placed
on record clearly establishes the following undisputed
facts. Under Ex.D.13, Smt.Ankamma alienated 2 acres
of land in favour of Venkatappa under a registered sale
deed dated 24.06.1940, which portion was thereafter
renumbered as Sy.No.107/1, leaving the remaining extent
of 4 acres 3 guntas as Sy.No.107/2. Thereafter, under
Ex.D.5, being the registered sale deed dated 08.07.1940,
Smt. Ankamma alienated a further extent of 2 acres in
favour of Venkatappa. Having thus conveyed 4 acres out
of the total extent, Smt. Ankamma executed a registered
Release Deed dated 28.03.1945 in favour of the plaintiff
and defendant No.2, evidenced at Ex.P.1, in respect of the
remaining extent.
- 11 -
11. Significantly, the plaintiff and defendant No.2,
while asserting title under the said Release Deed, have
suppressed the subsequent alienation made by them in
favour of Veeraswami Pillai under the registered sale deed
dated 16.04.1959, marked at Ex.D.1, which document
came to be marked on confrontation. It is in spite of this
complete divestment of title that the present suit has been
instituted.
12. If the plaintiff and defendant No.2, having
acquired title under the registered Release Deed dated
28.03.1945 to an extent of 2 acres 3 guntas, have
themselves conveyed the said extent in favour of
Veeraswami Pillai under Ex.D.1, the crucial question that
arises for consideration is whether the original plaintiff,
H.N.Anantha Kalyan, could have maintained the present
suit challenging the alienation made by Smt.Ankamma in
the year 1973 to an extent of 2 acres in favour of
defendant No.1. In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks to
nullify the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1973, marked
at Ex.D.22, executed by Smt. Ankamma in favour of
- 12 -
defendant No.1. When the sale deeds dated 24.06.1940
(Ex.D.13), 08.07.1940 (Ex.D.5) executed by Smt.
Ankamma in favour of Venkatappa and the sale deed
dated 16.04.1959 (Ex.D.1) executed by the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 in favour of Veeraswami Pillai are
cumulatively examined, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the original owner, namely Smt.Ankamma,
together with her sons, have alienated the entire extent of
6 acres 3¾ guntas comprised in Sy.No.107, leaving no
residue whatsoever.
13. Once the plaintiff and defendant No.2 admittedly
conveyed their interest in respect of 2 acres 3 guntas
under Ex.D.1 in favour of Veeraswami Pillai, no right, title
or interest survived in their favour thereafter. Section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act unequivocally mandates
that a sale of immovable property of value exceeding
Rs.100/- can be effected only by a registered instrument,
and such transfer operates to divest the vendor of title
immediately and absolutely. The plaintiff and defendant
No.2, who claim title under the Release Deed dated
- 13 -
28.03.1945, have unequivocally acted upon the same by
executing the registered sale deed dated 16.04.1959 in
favour of Veeraswami Pillai. Having thus alienated the
property, they cannot approbate and reprobate by
asserting a subsisting right which had already stood
extinguished decades earlier.
14. It is also noteworthy that Smt.Ankamma
purported to execute yet another sale deed in favour of
defendant No.1 in the year 1973. This Court is now called
upon to examine whether the plaintiff has any locus to
question the title claimed by defendant No.1 under the
said sale deed dated 12.03.1973. A suit seeking
declaratory relief under law is maintainable only when the
plaintiff establishes a present, subsisting and enforceable
legal right. The documents referred to hereinabove
conclusively demonstrate that neither the plaintiff nor
defendant No.2, nor even their mother Smt. Ankamma,
retained any subsisting interest in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.107 at the relevant point of time. The
plaintiff is clearly guilty of suppression of material facts,
- 14 -
particularly the alienation made under Ex.D.1, and has
approached the Court without any enforceable right. The
validity or otherwise of the sale deed executed by
Smt.Ankamma in 1973, and the title claimed by defendant
No.1 thereunder, does not arise for adjudication at the
instance of a plaintiff who lacks locus standi. Accordingly,
Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the "Negative".
15. Point No.(iii):- In view of the findings recorded
on point Nos.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the
following;
ORDER
(i) The appeal is devoid of merits
and accordingly, stands dismissed.
(ii) I.A.No.1/2026 filed for
production of additional documents and
I.A.No.2/2026 filed for amendment of
plaint are also dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
