Karnataka High Court
N Jagadish vs Sri K A Shashidhar on 16 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RFA NO. 712 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. N. JAGADISH
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1(A) SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE NO. JAGADISH
1(B) SMT. PRATHIMA .J
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
W/O SACHIN
D/O LATE N. JAGADISH
1(C) SMT. RESHMA .J
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O LATE NO. JAGADISH
1(D) SRI. NAVEEN GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O LATE N. JAGADISH
ALL ARE R/AT NO.231, 5TH MAIN
1ST CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT
BANGALORE NORTH
BENGALURU-560 064.
2. SRI. KRISHNA S. TAVILDAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE S.K.TAVILDAR
R/AT NO. 412, 2ND CORSS
2
5TH CROSS, KENGERI STAELLITE TOWN
BANGALORE-560 060.
[AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.03.2021]
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-D) AND A2)
AND:
1. SRI. K.A. SHASHIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O K.V. ASHWATHANARAYANA
RESIDING AT NO. 666
R.S.R.S ROAD, BANGARPET-563114.
2. SMT. VATSALA NATARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE K. NATARAJAN
RESIDING AT NO.65
"ANANTHA NILAYA", AGB LAYOUT
II STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE-560086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C-R1;
V/O DATED 24.02.2011 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.
No. 2931/2008 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION,
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND POSSESSION.
THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 29.01.2026, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful defendants 1
and 3 questioning the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010
passed in O.S.No.2931/2008 wherein the plaintiff's suit for
declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction
and possession is decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No.2931/2008
seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of Site
No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1 and for consequential reliefs. The
plaintiff asserted that he acquired valid title and lawful
possession over the suit schedule property pursuant to a
registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006 executed in his favour
by Smt. Chennamma. It was pleaded that Site No.6 is a
revenue site carved out of agricultural land bearing Survey
4
No.58/1 and that the second defendant was the absolute
owner of the said agricultural land, having acquired the same
under a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2001.
4. The plaintiff's case, as pleaded, is that the second
defendant formed several residential sites in Survey No.58/1
and, as early as in the year 2003, sold Site No.6 in favour of
Smt. Chennamma under a registered sale deed. The said
Chennamma, having thus acquired valid title, subsequently
conveyed Site No.6 in favour of the present plaintiff under the
registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. On the strength of the
said conveyance, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute
owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property.
5. It was further pleaded that on 25.03.2008, the
plaintiff was informed by a neighbour, one Lokesh, that the
first defendant along with his family members had attempted
to perform Bhoomi Puja in respect of the suit site. On enquiry
conducted on 26.03.2008, the plaintiff came to know that the
5
first defendant was claiming right over the suit site on the
basis of a registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005 executed by
the third defendant in his favour. The plaintiff therefore
contended that the third defendant had no right, title or
interest to convey Site No.6, inasmuch as the original owner,
namely the second defendant, had already alienated Site No.6
in favour of Chennamma much prior to the alleged sale in
favour of the third defendant. On these grounds, the plaintiff
sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.12.2005
obtained by the first defendant is null, void and not binding on
him.
6. The second defendant, who is the original owner of
Survey No.58/1, filed her written statement admitting the
plaintiff's claim in unequivocal terms. She admitted that she
had formed residential sites in the said survey number and
had sold Site Nos. 4, 5, 6, 13, 16 and 18 to various
purchasers, including Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma,
and that possession was delivered to the respective
purchasers. She further admitted that Chennamma, in turn,
6
sold Site No.6 in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale
deed dated 19.05.2006. The second defendant categorically
admitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Site No.6.
She also stated that she had informed the third defendant
about the prior alienation of six sites and that an agreement
was entered into, under which the third defendant was
required to develop and sell the remaining extent of land in
Survey No.58/1, excluding the six sites already sold.
7. Per contra, defendants 1 and 3 contested the suit
by filing a detailed written statement and seriously disputed
the plaintiff's title. They contended that the third defendant
had purchased the entire extent of land measuring 1 acre 20
guntas from the second defendant and her son and that after
securing conversion of the land, a registered sale deed dated
14.12.2004 was executed in favour of the third defendant. It
was further contended that the remaining 20 guntas was
purchased from one Venkataramaiah. According to the
defendants, the third defendant, after purchase and
conversion, formed a residential layout and that the site
7
claimed by the plaintiff as Site No.6 is altogether different
from the Site No.6 formed by the third defendant in the
converted layout. The third defendant specifically denied the
existence of any agreement excluding six sites from the sale
and disputed the claim that Site No.6 had been previously
alienated.
8. The parties, in support of their respective claims,
adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court,
on a meticulous appreciation of the sale deeds relied upon by
the plaintiff, the conveyance in favour of the third defendant,
and the conversion order, recorded a categorical finding that
the second defendant had sold agricultural land bearing
Survey No.58/1 to the third defendant excluding six sites
which had already been alienated prior to such sale. The Trial
Court further held that the plaintiff had successfully traced his
title through Smt. Chennamma, who had acquired Site No.6
under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003, much prior to
the sale in favour of the third defendant.
8
9. The Trial Court also examined in detail the layout
plan relied upon by the defendants, marked as Ex.D5, and
found that there was a deliberate and conscious attempt to
realign and renumber the sites in the second row so as to
create confusion with regard to the identity of Site No.6
claimed by the plaintiff. The Court held that such mischief was
clearly intended to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiff.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Trial
Court concluded that valid title in respect of Site No.6 had
been conveyed by the second defendant to Chennamma, who
in turn conveyed the same to the plaintiff under the registered
sale deed dated 19.05.2006. Consequently, the Trial Court
decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner
of the suit schedule property and granted consequential relief
of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property.
9
11. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and the
learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 3.
12. The following points arise for consideration:
"(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in
holding that the suit schedule property, namely Site
No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1, is part and parcel of
agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1?
(ii) Whether the Trial Court rightly appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence in concluding
that the second defendant, as the absolute owner of
Survey No.58/1, had validly formed and alienated
Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma under the
registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003?
(iii) Whether the Trial Court was correct in
holding that, by virtue of the sale deed dated
23.01.2003, the second defendant stood divested of
all right, title and interest in Site No.6 and that
Chennamma was competent to convey valid title in
10
favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed
dated 19.05.2006?
(iv) Whether the Trial Court committed any error
in rejecting the contention of defendants 1 and 3
that the site purchased by the plaintiff and the site
purchased by the first defendant are distinct and
different properties falling under different local
authority jurisdictions?
(v) Whether the Trial Court was justified in
holding that the third defendant had no saleable title
in respect of Site No.6 and that the sale deed dated
05.12.2005 executed by the third defendant in
favour of the first defendant is null, void and not
binding on the plaintiff?
(vi) Whether the Trial Court properly appreciated
the admissions made by the second defendant in her
written statement and chief-examination in terms of
11
Sections 17, 18 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872?
(vii) Whether the Trial Court was right in drawing
an adverse inference against defendants 1 and 3
under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, in the facts and circumstances
of the case?
(viii) What Order?"
FINDINGS ON POINTS (i) to (vii):
13. Before this Court proceeds to examine the rival
claims touching upon the validity of the plaintiff's title over the
suit schedule property, namely Site No.6, it would be apposite
to first advert to the categorical stand taken by the second
defendant, who is the admitted and undisputed original owner
of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1. The second
defendant having derived title under a registered sale deed
and being the absolute owner of the said survey number, her
pleadings and evidence assume significant probative value. In
12
this regard, para 4 of the written statement filed by the
second defendant is of considerable relevance and, therefore,
merits extraction and close scrutiny. Para 4 of the written
statement of second defendant reads as under:
"4. The averments made in Para 3 of the plaint that he
is the sole and absolute owner of the Schedule Property,
having acquired the same as detailed in Para 4 is true and
correct. Likewise, the averments made in Para 5 that this
defendant was the owner of the agricultural land measuring to
an extent of 1 Acre in Sy. No. 58/1, Jarakabande Kaval Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a sale deed
dated 09-08-2001 as per Document No. 2 annexed to the
plaint is true and correct. Further it is true that this defendant
has formed residential sites of various dimensions and has
sold site bearing No. 6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma, and
having put the said Chennamma in possession of the Schedule
Property, under a sale deed dated 23-01-2003 as per
Document No. 2 of the plaint. That said Chennamma has
informed me that she has sold the said site in favour of the
plaintiff and having put him in possession of the said site. It is
also true that I have obtained Khatha Endorsement from the
Byatarayanapura CMC vide document No. 5 annexed to the
Plaint."
14. A conjoint reading of the said pleading reveals that
the second defendant has unequivocally admitted that she had
13
formed revenue sites in Survey No.58/1 and had alienated six
such sites, including Site No.6, in favour of different
purchasers much prior to the sale in favour of the third
defendant. This admission, coming from the original owner,
goes to the very root of the matter and decisively establishes
the factum of prior alienation of Site No.6.
15. The next crucial aspect which requires
consideration is the comparative examination of the
boundaries reflected in the registered sale deed dated
19.05.2006 obtained by the plaintiff, marked as Ex. P1, and
the registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005 obtained by the
first defendant through the third defendant, marked as Ex.
P12. The schedules annexed to both these sale deeds, more
particularly the boundaries, are required to be extracted and
analysed in detail, as the entire controversy raised by
defendants 1 and 3 hinges upon the alleged difference in
identity of the sites.
14
Ex.P1
" ೆಡೂ ಲು ವರ
ಾ ೕ ಾ ಟ ಾಯನಪ ರ ನಗರಸ ೆ ಾ ೆ ಒಳಪ ರುವ 03!ೇ
ಾ"# ೆ $ೇ%ದ ೆಂಗಳ(ರು ಉತರ +ಾಲೂ,ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬ0, 1ಾರಕ
ಬಂ2ೆ3ಾವಲು ಾ4ಮದ ಸ67ನ ನಂ.6, ಾಮಚಂದ4ಪ ರ ಾ4ಮ ಪಂ9ಾ: ;ಾ+ಾ
ನಂ.58/1, ಾ ೕ <.ಎಂ.<.;ಾ+ಾ 06/58/1!ೇ ನಂಬರುಳ> ;ಾ
? ೇಶನ3ೆA ಚಕುAಬಂB-
ಪCವ#3ೆA : 7!ೇ ನಂಬರು ಸ6ತು
ಪFGಮ3ೆA : 5!ೇ ನಂಬರು ಸ6ತು
ಉತರ3ೆA : 15!ೇ ನಂಬರು ಸ6ತು
ದHಣ3ೆA : ರ$ೆ.
ಈ ಮKೆ ಇರುವ ಪCವ# ಪFGಮ 30-0 ಮೂವತು ಅNಗಳO, ಉತರ
ದHಣ 40-0 ನಲವತು ಅNಗಳO, ಒಟು 1200 ಚದರ ಅNಗಳO, ಈ %ೕ7
ಅಳ+ೆಯುಳ> ;ಾ ? ೇಶನ ಈ ಶುದP ಕ4ಯ3ೆA $ೇ%ರು+ೆ"
Ex.P12:
"SCHEDULE - 'Β'
All the piece and parcel of Vacant site No. 6 carved out
of Sy. No. 58/1 i.e Schedule 'A' property Residential
Conversion Land, duly Converted from Agriculture to non-
agriculatural Residential purpose vide Deputy Commissioner
Order dated 9-7-2004, No. DS/ALN/SR(NA)/A/4/200402005,
CMC Katha No.45/58/1p1, situated at Jarak bande Kaval,
15
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to
West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on :
East by : Site bearing No. 7
West by : Site bearing No. 5
North by : Site bearing No. 13 and
South by : Road, 25 feet"
16. Equally important for consideration is the rough
sketch produced by the plaintiff, which depicts the alignment
and positioning of the revenue sites originally formed by the
second defendant. This sketch, when read in conjunction with
the sale deed dated 23.01.2003 executed by the second
defendant in favour of Chennamma, and the subsequent sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff at Ex.P1, provides a consistent
and coherent picture regarding the location and boundaries of
Site No.6. On the other hand, the defendants have relied upon
a layout plan, which is admittedly an unapproved one, said to
have been prepared by the third defendant after purchase and
conversion. Even this document, though lacking statutory
approval, has been extracted and examined by this Court for
16
the limited purpose of appreciating the defence set up by
defendant Nos.1 and 3. The layout plan is extracted as
under:
HOUSING LAYOUT FORMED AT SY.NO.58/1P1
N
sw
BANGALORE-YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD
PRIVATE PROPERTY
30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' FEET
ROAD
40' 18A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24' ROAD WITH BOX-DRAIN AIR
FORCE
LAYOUT
25' 40' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 remaining land of
FEET Sy.No. 58/1P1
ROAD 40' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24' ROAD WITH BOX-DRAIN
50' 50' 50' 55'
DARA
1-C 1-D 4'6'
GA
1-A 1-B WALL
51' 54'
51'
51'
TEACHERS LAYOUT
17. On a closer and comparative examination of the
schedules annexed to Exs. P1 and P12, it becomes manifest
that the third defendant, who was fully aware of the prior sale
17
of six revenue sites by the second defendant as is evident
from para 4 of the written statement filed by the second
defendant has deliberately resorted to a device of rearranging
and renumbering the sites. The site numbers in the second
row have been assigned in a descending order from west to
east, with a clear intention to create an artificial distinction
between the site purchased by the plaintiff and the site
conveyed to the first defendant. This manipulation is evident
from the fact that in the plaintiff's sale deed, the northern
boundary is shown as Site No.15, whereas in the sale deed
obtained by the first defendant, the northern boundary is
reflected as Site No.13.
18. The second defendant, who is the original owner
has not only acknowledged the sale of six revenue sites which
includes suit site No.6, but she has also acknowledged the
rough sketch furnished by the plaintiff. Second defendant
secured conversion order and thereafter sold land bearing
Survey No.58/1 excluding six sites. Therefore, this Court
deems it fit to compare the sketch furnished by the plaintiff
18
which aligns with the sale of revenue sites by second
defendant prior to conversion with that of the unapproved
layout plan relied on by defendants 1 and 3. Both sketches
are extracted to understand the core dispute between plaintiff
and defendants 1 and 3.
The sketch furnished by the plaintiff:
The red marked portion is the suit schedule property.
The sketch relied by defendant No.3 evidenced at Ex.D5
is as under:
19
19. It is precisely on the basis of this deliberate
renumbering that the first defendant has vehemently
contended that the site purchased by the plaintiff and the site
conveyed in his favour are entirely different. However, such a
contention does not withstand judicial scrutiny. When the
rough sketch furnished by the plaintiff is examined in the light
of the boundaries described in Ex. P2, the sale deed executed
in favour of Chennamma by the second defendant and Ex. P1,
it clearly establishes continuity and identity of the very same
Site No.6. The alignment of boundaries remains consistent and
unaltered, thereby demolishing the defence theory of distinct
and separate sites.
20. The evidence on record unmistakably discloses that
the third defendant, despite being put on notice about the
prior alienation of six revenue sites, has consciously formed a
layout by interchanging site numbers in the second row with
the sole object of creating confusion and of circumventing the
earlier valid conveyances made by the original owner. Such
conduct, far from conferring any legitimacy on the claim of
20
defendants 1 and 3, reinforces the plaintiff's case of prior and
lawful acquisition of title.
21. The stand taken by the second defendant in para 4
of her written statement, when read conjointly with her chief-
examination, leaves no room for doubt. The second defendant,
being a competent and natural witness to the transactions in
question, has unequivocally admitted the formation and sale of
six revenue sites, including the suit Site No.6. This admission,
coupled with the documentary evidence, conclusively
establishes that the plaintiff traces his title to a valid and prior
conveyance and that the subsequent transactions relied upon
by defendants 1 and 3 cannot, in law or on facts, defeat the
plaintiff's lawful title over the suit schedule property.
22. A feeble attempt is made by defendants 1 and 3 to
contend that Site No.6 purchased by the plaintiff falls within
the jurisdiction of Ramachandra Gram Panchayat, as reflected
in the plaintiff's sale deed, whereas the conversion order and
the sale deed obtained by the first defendant through
21
defendant No.3 place the property within the jurisdiction of
Byatarayanapura City Municipal Council. On this premise, it is
contended that the Site No.6 claimed by the plaintiff and the
site purchased by the first defendant are entirely different
properties. This contention is wholly untenable and devoid of
merit.
23. The said defence stands completely demolished in
view of the categorical and unequivocal admissions made by
the second defendant/the admitted original owner of Survey
No.58/1 in para 4 of her written statement, coupled with her
statement in chief-examination, more particularly para 4
thereof. The second defendant has clearly admitted that Site
No.6 is part and parcel of agricultural land bearing Survey
No.58/1 and that the same was formed and sold by her much
prior to the alleged sale in favour of defendant No.3. In view
of such an admission, the identity of the suit site and its origin
from Survey No.58/1 stands conclusively established.
22
24. It is trite that admissions are substantive evidence
by themselves. In terms of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, the statements made by the second
defendant in her pleadings and sworn testimony squarely fall
within the definition of "admission". By virtue of Section 58 of
the Evidence Act,1872 facts admitted need not be proved.
Therefore, once the original owner admits the formation and
sale of Site No.6 out of Survey No.58/1, the burden on the
plaintiff to further prove the origin and identity of the site
stands substantially discharged.
25. The contention regarding jurisdiction of the local
authority is equally misconceived. It is a matter of common
occurrence that when revenue sites are formed and alienated
prior to conversion, Khata extracts are issued by the Gram
Panchayat, and such sites are described by Khata numbers
instead of survey numbers. Merely because the plaintiff's sale
deed refers to Khata No.58/1 and the Panchayat jurisdiction,
the defendants cannot contend that the site is distinct or
unrelated to Survey No.58/1. The documentary evidence
23
produced by the plaintiff, more particularly Exs. P-3 to P-10,
consistently refer to Survey No.58/1, thereby establishing that
Site No.6 emanates from the very same survey number.
26. Further, the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff
depicting the alignment and location of the revenue sites is
admitted by the second defendant in para 2 of her written
statement. This admission further fortifies the plaintiff's case
with regard to the identity and location of Site No.6. Once the
original owner admits both the formation and sale of the site
and also acknowledges the correctness of the sketch,
defendants 1 and 3 cannot be permitted to dispute the very
existence or identity of the suit site.
27. In law, once a valid sale is effected by the owner,
the vendor is divested of all right, title and interest in the
property sold. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
postulates that a transfer of property passes forthwith to the
transferee all the interest which the transferor is capable of
passing. In the present case, by executing a registered sale
24
deed dated 23.01.2003 in favour of Smt. Chennamma,
marked as Ex.P2, the second defendant completely divested
herself of title in respect of Site No.6. Consequently, the
second defendant had no subsisting right or interest in Site
No.6 thereafter, and such right could not have been conveyed,
either directly or indirectly, to defendant No.3.
28. In terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, a sale of immovable property of the value exceeding
Rs.100/- can be made only by a registered instrument. Ex.P2
being a registered sale deed executed in favour of
Chennamma constitutes a valid conveyance in the eye of law.
Chennamma, having thus acquired absolute title, was fully
competent to convey the same to the plaintiff under the
registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006 (Ex.P1). The plaintiff
therefore acquired valid and lawful title over Site No.6.
29. On the other hand, defendant No.3, who admittedly
purchased the remaining extent of land in Survey No.58/1
after prior alienation of six revenue sites, could not have
25
acquired any right, title or interest in respect of Site No.6. A
vendor cannot convey a better title than what he himself
possesses. Therefore, the sale deed executed by defendant
No.3 in favour of the first defendant, insofar as it relates to
Site No.6, does not convey any right or title and is legally
ineffectual.
30. This Court also cannot lose sight of the peculiar
manner in which the second defendant was prevented from
offering herself for cross-examination. Though she entered the
witness box and tendered her chief-examination supporting
the plaintiff's case, she was not subjected to cross-
examination. In such circumstances, an adverse inference
under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is liable to be drawn against defendants 1 and 3, and
not against the plaintiff. The conduct of defendants 1 and 3 in
effectively stalling the cross-examination of a crucial witness,
whose evidence goes against them, reinforces the credibility of
the plaintiff's version.
26
31. The second defendant, a lady owner of the land in
question, has acted with candour and fairness by filing a
written statement admitting the prior sale of six revenue sites
and by stating that defendant No.3 was duly informed of such
prior alienations and was required, under the agreement, to
exclude those six sites while dealing with the remaining land.
This admission strikes at the very root of the defence set up
by defendants 1 and 3.
32. In view of the unequivocal admissions of the
second defendant, the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003
(Ex.P2), the subsequent conveyance in favour of the plaintiff
(Ex.P1), and the consistent documentary evidence produced
by the plaintiff, it stands clearly established that the second
defendant had lost all right, title and interest over Site No.6
much prior to the alleged sale in favour of defendant No.3.
Consequently, defendant No.3 had no saleable title in respect
of Site No.6, and the sale deed executed by him in favour of
the first defendant does not convey any right, title or interest
27
over the suit schedule property and is therefore null, void and
not binding on the plaintiff.
33. For the foregoing detailed discussion and the
cumulative assessment of the pleadings, oral testimony, and
documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the plaintiff has successfully
discharged the burden cast upon him. The plaintiff has
convincingly established that the suit schedule property,
namely Site No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1, is in fact part and
parcel of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1 and
that the said site was lawfully formed and carved out by the
second defendant while she was the absolute owner of the
said survey number, much prior to the sale in favour of the
third defendant.
34. This Court further holds that the plaintiff has
conclusively substantiated that the second defendant, in her
capacity as the absolute owner of Survey No.58/1, had
already alienated Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma
28
under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003. By virtue of
the said conveyance, the second defendant stood completely
divested of all right, title and interest in respect of Site No.6.
Chennamma, having thus acquired valid and lawful title, was
fully competent to convey the same, and she accordingly
transferred Site No.6 in favour of the plaintiff under a
registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. The plaintiff,
therefore, acquired valid title in accordance with law.
35. On the contrary, the defendants have utterly failed
to establish that the third defendant had purchased the entire
extent of land in Survey No.58/1 inclusive of Site No.6. The
evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the purchase
made by the third defendant was subject to prior alienations
and exclusions, and consequently, the third defendant had no
subsisting or saleable interest in respect of Site No.6. In this
factual and legal backdrop, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the sale deed dated 05.12.2005 executed by the
third defendant in favour of the first defendant, insofar as it
relates to Site No.6, is null, void and not binding on the
29
plaintiff, the same having been executed in the teeth of a prior
valid conveyance.
36. The plaintiff has also satisfactorily proved his lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on
the date of the institution of the suit. The defendants, despite
contest, have failed to establish that there was no exclusion of
six revenue sites from the sale in favour of the third defendant
or to dislodge the categorical admissions made by the second
defendant, who is the original owner of the property.
37. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, this Court finds no infirmity in the
findings recorded by the Trial Court. On the contrary, the
material on record clearly supports the conclusion that
defendants 1 and 3 had indulged in deliberate manipulation
and realignment of site numbers in the layout plan with an
intent to create confusion regarding the identity of Site No.6
and to defeat the prior lawful transactions. The relief of
declaration of title and the consequential relief of permanent
30
injunction granted by the Trial Court are founded on cogent,
consistent, and clinching evidence and do not call for
interference.
For the foregoing reasons, points (i) to (iii) and (v) to
(vii) are answered in the affirmative and point No.(iv) is
answered in the negative.
FINDING ON POINT No.(viii)
38. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB