Karnataka High Court
Smt. Danavva W/O Irappa Malagi, vs Sri. Basappa Somappa Pujeri, on 26 June, 2014
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
RSA No.6078/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
RSA No.6078/2010 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.DANAVVA W/O IRAPPA MALAGI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARADAGAD,
SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
2. SMT.NAGAVVA W/O MAHADEVAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARADAGAD,
SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
3. SRI.MALLAPPA W/O RAYAPPA NAIKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARADAGAD,
SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
4. SRI.DODDAYALLAPPA BASAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: KOTUR, TQ: PARASAGAD,
DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
5. SMT.NINGAWWA W/O NEELAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KARIMANI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
RSA No.6078/2010
2
6. SRI.MAHANTESH S/O LACHAPPA CHIKKOPPA,
MINOR GURDIAN SRI. MALLAPPA BASAPPA NAIKAR,
BY APPELLANT NO.5.
7. SMT.SHOBHA D/O RACHAPPA CHIKKOPPA,
MINOR GURDIAN SRI. MALLAPPA BASAPPA NAIKAR,
BY APPELLANT NO.5.
8. SMT.MAHADEVI W/O LAXMAN BEDSUR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KUTANATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI-591120.
9. SMT.SUSHILA W/O BASAPPA HANCHINMANI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: SINGARKOPPA,
TQ: SAUNDATTI-591120.
10. SRI.IRAPPA NEELAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM591120.
11. SRI.MALLAPPA BASAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.R.K.KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI.BASAPPA SOMAPPA PUJERI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARASAGAD
(SAUNDATTI), DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
2. SRI.MAHADEVAPPA KAREPPA MUGABASAV,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARASAGAD,
(SAUNDATTI), DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
RSA No.6078/2010
3
3. SMT.BASAVVA W/O BASAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CHACHADI, TQ: PARASAGAD,
(SAUNDATTI), DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
4. SRI.NAGAPPA BASAPPA KENCHANNAVAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARASAGAD
(SAUNDATTI), DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
5. SRI.SOMAPPA BASAPPA KENCHANNAVAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARIMANI, TQ: PARASAGAD
(SAUNDATTI), DIST: BELGAUM-591120.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.G.NAGANURI, ADV. FOR C/R2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2010
PASSED IN R.A.NO.54/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE IV-ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2003 AND THE
DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.23/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) SAUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED
FOR CANCELLATION OF THE SALE DEED AND FOR RECOVERY
OF POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Concurrent findings are called in question before this Court by the unsuccessful plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S.No.23/1998, which was pending on the file of the Civil RSA No.6078/2010 4 Judge (Sr.Dn.), Saundatti. Suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein against the respondents / defendants for cancellation of sale deed and for recovery of possession of the suit property has been dismissed after contest vide judgment dated 15.10.2003. Against the said judgment and decree an appeal had been filed under Section 96 of CPC before the IV Additional District Judge, Belgaum in R.A.No.54/2003 raising several grounds. The said appeal has also been dismissed after contest. Hence, the concurrent findings are called in question before this Court by the appellants who are plaintiffs in the said suit.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs are as follows:
One person by name Basappa is no more and he had two sons by name Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa,. Both Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa are no more. Second son Sannabasappa died on 19.06.1961 and he has a wife by name Yallawwa and she is defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.1 RSA No.6078/2010 5 and 2 are the purchasers of the suit schedule property bearing block No.18 measuring 19 acres 30 guntas inclusive of phut kharab of 29 guntas in Karimani village in Saundatti Taluk. The property in question originally belonged to one Basappa and after his death, Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa had inherited the said properties equally. According to the plaintiffs who are the children of Doddabasappa, Sannabasappa had relinquished his half share through a registered relinquishment deed dated 15.06.1961 and thus Sannabasappa had no subsisting interest in his half share relating to block No.18. According to the plaintiffs, consequent upon the relinquishment deed dated 15.06.1961, plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the entire properties measuring 19.30 acres.
3. Further case of the plaintiffs is that, defendant Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with defendant No.3, have obtained some documents in regard to half extent of land in block No.18 by undue influence and coercion and therefore, they have sought RSA No.6078/2010 6 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 06.12.1968. They have also sought for the consequential relief of possession of the schedule property.
4. According to the plaintiffs, their half share in the land was obtained by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No.3 by playing fraud, undue influence and they were taken on 05.12.1968 to Saundatti and were detained in an unknown place and some documents were obtained. On the next day all of them were taken in a car forcibly to the Sub-Registrar's office and they were made to admit the execution. This, according to the plaintiffs, is a clear case of coercion, undue influence and therefore, they have sought for declaration to the effect that the sale deed relied upon by defendant Nos.1 to 3 is not the sale deed in the eye of law and it has to be declared as null and void.
5. Defendant No.3, being the wife of late Sannabasappa, has executed regular sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the same day in respect of the share of RSA No.6078/2010 7 Sannabasappa and she has virtually supported the case of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed detailed written statement denying all the material allegations found in the plaint. After contest, suit came to be dismissed holding that plaintiffs have not been able to prove the serious allegations of undue influence and fraud with all requisite particulars. Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed after contest.
6. Perused the judgments of both the Courts and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in regard to admission.
7. Serious allegations of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation of facts are special pleas and they require specific particulars as contemplated under Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC. Apart from furnishing specific particulars in regard to these allegations, the burden of proving such allegation is virtually more. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of proof required to prove such allegations is RSA No.6078/2010 8 almost akin to the burden of proof as is insisted in the trial of criminal cases. Though suit was filed in the year 1971 i.e., within three years from the date of alleged execution of the sale deed by the plaintiffs, they have not been able to substantiate the same by producing acceptable evidence. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have assessed the entire evidence on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities and have come to the conclusion that plaintiffs have thoroughly failed to prove the serious allegation of fraud, undue influence and coercion. Hence, no good grounds are made out to interfere with the finding on facts relating to the inability of the plaintiffs to prove the allegations of fraud, undue influence and coercion. It is also forthcoming that possession has also been handed over to defendant Nos.1 and 2 by the plaintiffs on the very same day. If possession has not been handed over to defendant Nos.1 and 2, it would have been something different. Possession always follows title and this aspect has been taken into consideration by both the Courts.
RSA No.6078/20109
8. Taking into consideration the overall aspects of the case, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court has rightly affirmed the dismissal of the suit. No good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered finding on facts and no illegality or infirmity is found in the approach adopted by both the Courts. Hence, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration before this Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as unfit for admission.
ORDER Appeal is dismissed as unfit for admission by upholding the judgments of both the Courts.
There is no order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE.
MBS/-