Case Note & Summary
The judgment is a common order in House Rent Revision Petition Nos. 136/2011 and 115/2011, and Regular First Appeal No. 160/2021. The appellant, Smt. Girijamma, claimed ownership of property bearing No. 1, Ramakrishnanagar, Bengaluru, purchased via registered sale deed dated 19.08.2006 from her husband Narayanappa. Narayanappa allegedly derived title from one Chikkamuniyappa (original owner) through a general power of attorney and agreement of sale dated 19.05.1986, with possession delivered on the same day. The appellant constructed a house on the property, obtained permissions, and let out portions. Respondent No. 1 in the appeal, Smt. Dhanalakshmi, purchased the same property from Chikkamuniyappa under sale deed dated 26.02.2004, leading to conflicting claims. Eviction petitions were filed under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The trial court in O.S. No. 9741/2006 dismissed the appellant's suit for declaration that the 2004 sale deed is null and void and for permanent injunction. The Small Causes Court in HRC No. 609/2006 dismissed an eviction petition, while in HRC No. 554/2005 it allowed an eviction petition against a tenant. The revisions and appeal challenged these orders. The judgment text provided is incomplete, cutting off after the framing of issues and commencement of evidence. The court's analysis, findings, and final decision are not available.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 17
HRRP No. 136/2011, HRRP No. 115/2011, RFA No. 160/2021
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh
Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, V. Ranga Ramu, S.G. Vishwanath, A.S. Mahesh
Sri. Seenappa, Smt. Dhanalakshmi, Basavaraju, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over ownership of property No. 1, Ramakrishnanagar, Bengaluru, involving a declaratory suit to nullify a sale deed and eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought reversal of the trial court's dismissal of her declaratory suit, and reversal of orders in two eviction petitions, to establish her title and regain possession or protection.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed ownership through a chain of documents from the original owner, alleging that the sale deed dated 26.02.2004 in favour of respondent was fraudulent, and that tenants had filed eviction petitions against her.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court in O.S. No. 9741/2006 dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 10.02.2021; Small Causes Court in HRC No. 609/2006 dismissed the eviction petition on 17.06.2011; Small Causes Court in HRC No. 554/2005 allowed the eviction petition on 30.05.2011.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 26.02.2004 is null and void and not binding?
Whether the plaintiff proves lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on date of suit?
Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by defendants?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages from defendant No. 1 for use and occupation?
Whether defendant No. 1 proves insufficient court fee?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (plaintiff) contended that she is absolute owner of suit property, having derived title through her husband who obtained possession under a general power of attorney and agreement of sale from original owner in 1986; that she constructed a house and has been in continuous possession; that the sale deed dated 26.02.2004 in favour of defendant No. 1 is fraudulent, sham, and null and void; and that defendants have no title.
Respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) contended that he purchased the suit property from defendant No. 2 via registered sale deed dated 26.02.2004 and became absolute owner; that the power of attorney allegedly executed by defendant No. 2 in 1986 was fabricated; that plaintiff’s husband had earlier filed a suit with contradictory claims; and that eviction petitions were rightly filed.
Original owner (defendant No. 2) denied executing any power of attorney or affidavit in 1986, denied handing over possession, and confirmed that he sold the property to defendant No. 1 in 2004 and delivered possession on that date.
Judgment Excerpts
The factual matrix of case of plaintiff/appellant before the First Appellate Court that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property...
The defendant No.1 ... denied the averment made in the plaint that plaintiff is the absolute owner...
The defendant No.1 ... contended that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has purchased the same on 26.02.2004...
Procedural History
Original owner Chikkamuniyappa allegedly executed GPA and sale agreement in 1986 in favour of plaintiff’s husband. Defendant No. 1 purchased the same property from Chikkamuniyappa via sale deed dated 26.02.2004. Plaintiff purchased the property from her husband via registered sale deed on 19.08.2006. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 9741/2006 seeking declaration of nullity of the 2004 sale deed and permanent injunction; suit dismissed on 10.02.2021. Prior suits included O.S. No. 675/2005 by plaintiff’s husband (dismissed for non-prosecution) and a suit by one Doorvas for specific performance (dismissed on 27.08.2009). Eviction petitions under Karnataka Rent Act: HRC No. 554/2005 allowed on 30.05.2011; HRC No. 609/2006 dismissed on 17.06.2011. The present revision petitions and appeal were filed against those orders, heard together, and reserved for orders on 09.07.2024, with judgment delivered on 25.07.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Rent Act, 1999: 27(2)(a), 27(2)(r), 46(1)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 96(1)
