Karnataka High Court
S P R Developers Pvt Ltd vs Sri V N Balaji on 10 November, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2088 OF 2013
BETWEEN
S.P.R.DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
BY ITS FOUNDER CHAIRMAN,
SRI. M.THIMMEGOWDA,
S/O. LATE MUTHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.32/2, 5TH MAIN,
GHANDHINAGAR,
BANGALURU-560009.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI L VAIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. V.N.BALAJI,
S/O. V.R.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.202,
AJANTA NIVASA,
RAMAIYENAGAR ROAD,
V.V.PURAM,
BANGALORE-560004.
2. SRI. H.KRISHNAPPA,
S/O. HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O. H.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
4. SRI. ANAND KUMAR,
SRI. H.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT
MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI DAKHALE,
HANUMANTHA NAGAR VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMNAGARA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 5/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD
20.01.2009 PASSED IN O.S.No.630/2006 ON THE FILE
OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant's counsel. This appeal is by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.630/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagar. Respondent No.1 in this appeal is the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 09.10.2006 executed by defendants No.2 to 4 in favour of 1st defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which is 1 acre of land in Sy.No.32/01 of Manchanayakanahalli Dakhale, Hanumanthahnagar Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The plaintiff pleaded that this property earlier belonged to H. Krishnappa and Bhagyamma, who are defendants No.2 and 3 respectively. He purchased the suit property from them on 21.12.1995. It was a converted land by the time the 4 plaintiff purchased the suit property. After purchasing the said property he obtained Khata to his name and was in possession.
3. Having noticed that some attempts were made to dispossess him by the defendants on the basis of illegal transactions, he filed the suit. The defendant No.1 did not file the written statement. Defendants No.2 and 3 were placed ex-parte. Defendant No.4 filed written statement simply denying the plaint averments. The plaintiff led his evidence before the Trial Court and produced the original sale deed dated 21.12.1995 as per Ex.P.1 and other documents as per Ex.P.2 to 5. Defendants did not adduce any evidence. Only on the ground that the plaintiff did not examine an attestator to his sale deed, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, R.A.No.5/2010 to the District Court, Ramanagar. The learned Fast 5 Track Court Judge who decided the appeal reversed the judgment and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
4. On perusing the judgment of the Fast Track Court, it is found that the learned Fast Track Court Judge has re-appreciated the evidence independently. The learned Appellate Court Judge noticed that the plaintiff's sale deed was earlier in point of time. Defendant No.1 purchased the very same property from defendant No.2 and 3 on 9.10.2006. By applying Section 47 (it must be Section 48) of Transfer of Property Act, the learned Fast Track Court Judge came to the conclusion that since the defendant No.1 purchased the very same property from defendants No.2 and 3 on 9.10.2006, defendant No.1 would not derive any right or interest because of the plaintiff's sale deed was earlier in point of time. The Fast Track Court also noticed that defendants No.1 to 4 failed to adduce evidence before the Trial Court.
6
Therefore I find that the Fast Track Court Judge was right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Substantial question of law does not arise. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd