Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:23359 deed in favour of the plaintiff. The said rectification deed is a collusive document by the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 with an intention to knock off the valuable suit property. The suit property is entirely different from the property mentioned in the original sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. They contended that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal in R.A.No.41/2011 on the file of the V additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the First Appellate Court has formulated the following points for consideration:

1. Whether appellant/plaintiff proved that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and there was a mistake in the sale deed about survey number, it was corrected by rectification deed?

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that the First Appellate Court considering the

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:23359 boundaries mentioned in Exs.P1, P3, P4- sale deeds, partition deed (Ex.D.19) and the suit schedule property, has rightly held that the property sold by Thimmadasappa is the suit schedule property and there is correction of the survey number mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P1 by rectification deed - Ex.P2. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 Thimmadasappa was not owning or possessing any other land than the suit schedule property and therefore had rightly held that it is a suit schedule property which the Thimmadasappa was possessing as on the date of the sale deed Ex.P3. He contends that even though Thimmadasappa was not having title to the suit schedule property as on the date of sale deed Ex.P3 dated 17.5.1971, but he acquired title by virtue of grant order dated 5.8.1982 passed by Land Tribunal in his favour and by virtue of the provision under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the alienee i.e. the plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 acquires title to the suit property. He submitted that in the plaint, the boundaries mentioned on North and

16. It is the plaintiff's case that the property sold under the sale deeds Exs.P1, P3 and P4 is the property bearing Sy.No.162, measuring 1 acre 18¼ guntas, but the survey number is wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.1/4. Sy.No.1/4 under Ex.P1 - sale deed came to be rectified as Sy.No.162 under the rectification deed - Ex.P2. The said

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:23359 Ex.P2 - rectification deed has been executed by defendant No.4 in favour of the plaintiff on 13.03.1997.