Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that though the father of the plaintiffs executed registered gift

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42552 deed in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma on 02.07.1940, the parties have not acted upon the same and even after the execution of registered gift deed, the name of plaintiff's father continued in the revenue records and further Thimmaiah and Ningamma had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. He further submits that defendant No.1 on the basis of the registered sale deed, submitted an application to the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities entered the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records. But the plaintiff has challenged the entries in the name of defendant No.1. The revenue authorities directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. He submits that the plaintiff has proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the alleged registered gift deed executed by him in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma is a nominal one and it was not acted upon. Hence he submits that both the courts below were justified in

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42552 passing the impugned judgments and prays to dismiss the appeal.

13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

14. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW : Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff died. His legal representatives were brought on record. One of the legal representatives of the plaintiff was examined as PW-1. He has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in- chief and contended that the grandfather of PW-1 has executed a registered gift deed in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma and the parties have not acted upon the registered gift deed. After the death of Thimmaiah and Ningamma, the said property was transferred in the name of their son i.e., Thimmegowda. The said Thimmegowda had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed. Further, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42552

15. During the course of cross-examination, PW-1 admits that the father of the plaintiff had executed registered gift deed in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma. He admits that he has produced certified copy of the said registered gift deed. He admits that he has read over the contents of the registered gift deed. He denies that on the basis of the registered gift deed, the names of Thimmaiah and Ningamma was entered in the revenue records. He admits that Thimmaiah and Ningamma had a son by name Thimmegowda.

18. From the perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the father of the plaintiff has executed registered gift deed dated 02.07.1940, in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma. Though on the basis of the said registered gift deed, the names of Thimmaiah and Ningamma was not entered in the revenue records, but as per Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, if any

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42552 person acquires any right by way of succession, survivorship, gift, etc., the officer shall at once give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the report to the person making it and further proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 128 provides that a person acquiring any right by virtue of registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the prescribed officer. In the instant case, admittedly, the father of the plaintiff executed registered gift deed in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma. It was the duty of the registering authority to intimate the prescribed officer about the registration of the document and admittedly in the instant case, registering authority had not intimated the acquisition of right by Thimmaiah and Ningamma to the prescribed officer. Further, the plaintiff has also not challenged the registered gift deed executed by father of plaintiff in favour of Thimmaiah and Ningamma. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the said gift deed is a nominal one and parties have not acted upon. Until and unless the plaintiff challenges the registered gift deed, plaintiff has no right to