Case Note & Summary
Two second appeals were filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the common judgment and decree of the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru, which had allowed appeals against two trial court decrees. The dispute centered on house property bearing Door No. 42, Rajendra Nagar, Mysuru. C. Rudraiah was the original allottee under a hire-purchase agreement with the Karnataka Housing Board. His daughters claimed he had executed a registered Will dated 20.11.1973 bequeathing the property to them, and upon his death on 06.01.1982, they became owners. In 1982, they filed a suit for injunction against Y. Chikkanna, who claimed to have purchased the property from Rudraiah under a sale deed dated 03.05.1979 for Rs. 22,000, with partial payment and balance payable at registration. The Sub-Registrar refused registration initially, but on appeal, the District Registrar directed registration on 23.06.1981, and the sale deed was registered on 27.06.1981. Chikkanna issued a legal notice demanding possession and got khata transferred. The daughters amended the plaint in 1988 to add a declaration that they are owners and the sale deed is null and void; the amendment was finally allowed by the High Court in CRP No. 2687 of 1994 on 23.02.1999. The trial court in OS No. 1114/1989 partly decreed the suit, granting injunction but refusing declaration. Chikkanna then filed OS No. 461/1999 for possession, which was decreed. The First Appellate Court reversed both, declaring the daughters owners in possession, the sale deed null and void, and dismissing Chikkanna’s suit. In the second appeals, the legal heir of Chikkanna (his wife Smt. P.C. Padmamba) contended: (a) the sale deed was valid and registration was not challenged by Rudraiah; (b) the daughters had withdrawn a writ petition against registration, so they accepted the conveyance; (c) the prayer for cancellation was time-barred as it was added by amendment in 1988; (d) non-payment of balance sale consideration does not invalidate a registered sale deed; (e) the First Appellate Court erred by not deciding an application for additional evidence alongside the appeal; and (f) relied on several precedents. The High Court noted undisputed facts regarding the execution and registration process but the final outcome of the appeals is not included in the provided judgment text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in declaring the sale deed null and void and dismissing the suit for possession, particularly regarding limitation, non-payment of balance consideration, and non-consideration of additional evidence application
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (03) 9
R.S.A. No.5/2017 c/w R.S.A. No.6/2017
Krishnamurthy G. Hasyagar for Appellant, Smt. Pushpakantha for Respondent No.3
Channaveeramma R., Miss R. Bagirathamma, Karnataka Housing Board
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suits for injunction, declaration, and possession concerning a house property originally allotted under a hire-purchase agreement, with dispute over validity of a sale deed and competing claims under a Will.
Remedy Sought
In OS 1114/1989: daughters of original allottee sought injunction (later amended to include declaration of ownership and nullity of sale deed). In OS 461/1999: purchaser sought possession. In second appeals: appellant (legal heir of purchaser) challenged First Appellate Court's reversal and grant of declaration to daughters.
Filing Reason
Daughters claimed under a Will and alleged interference by purchaser; purchaser claimed title under registered sale deed and sought possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court in OS 1114/1989 partly decreed in favor of daughters (injunction but no declaration). Trial Court in OS 461/1999 decreed in favor of purchaser for possession. First Appellate Court reversed both, declared daughters owners in possession, sale deed null and void, and dismissed purchaser's suit. These second appeals challenge the First Appellate Court's common judgment.
Issues
Whether the sale deed dated 03.05.1979 was validly registered and passed title despite non-payment of balance consideration
Whether the suit for declaration was time-barred, given that the prayer was added by amendment in 1988 and allowed only in 1999
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in not deciding the application for additional evidence along with the appeal
Whether the daughters were estopped from challenging the sale deed after having withdrawn a writ petition against registration
Submissions/Arguments
Once the sale deed was registered and not challenged by Rudraiah, it could not be invalidated later
The daughters had filed a writ petition challenging the registration order but withdrew it, thereby accepting the conveyance, so the suit for declaration was not maintainable
The prayer for cancellation of the sale deed was time-barred because it was made by amendment only in 1988, beyond the limitation period; even if the amendment was allowed, the claim itself was time-barred
Non-payment of the balance sale consideration does not invalidate a duly registered sale deed
The First Appellate Court's judgment was vitiated as it did not decide the application for additional evidence along with the appeal
Judgment Excerpts
On 15.02.1982, R.Chennaveeramma and R.Bhagirathamma—daughters of C.Rudraiah filed a suit seeking for a decree of injunction to restrain Y.Chikkanna from interfering with their possession over the house property bearing Door No.42, situated at N.G.O’s Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Mysuru.
Chikkanna ... stated that Rudraiah had executed a sale deed on 03.05.1979 in his favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,000/-.
The Sub-Registrar had refused to register the sale deed and he was therefore constrained to prefer an appeal to the District Registrar, who by an order dated 23.06.1981, directed the registration of the said sale deed and accordingly, the sale deed was registered on 27.06.1981.
The Trial Court after considering the evidence ... held that the plaintiffs had been unable to prove that the sale deed dated 03.05.1979 executed by Rudraiah in favour of the defendant was void and was not binding on them.
The Appellate Court consolidated both the appeals and after hearing, by a common judgment, concluded that the dismissal of the suit seeking for declaration was not justified and it proceeded to decree the suit filed by Chennaveeramma and Bhagirathamma in its entirety and declared them to be the owners in possession of the suit property.
Procedural History
15.02.1982: Daughters filed OS No.1114/1989 for injunction. 24.06.1988: Amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed to add declaration prayer; rejected by trial court. 23.02.1999: High Court allowed CRP No.2687/1994, permitting amendment. 25.10.1999: Trial Court partly decreed OS No.1114/1989, granting injunction but refusing declaration. 1999: Chikkanna filed OS No.461/1999 for possession. 06.09.2010: Trial Court decreed OS No.461/1999 in Chikkanna's favor. Appeal RA No.976/2009 preferred against OS No.1114/1989; RA No.983/2010 preferred against OS No.461/1999. 29.08.2016: First Appellate Court allowed both appeals, declaring daughters owners, sale deed null and void, and dismissing Chikkanna's suit. 2017: Second appeals RSA No.5/2017 and RSA No.6/2017 filed. 08.02.2022: Hearings reserved. 25.03.2022: Judgment pronounced (final outcome not provided in excerpt).
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order VI Rule 17, Order XLI Rule 27
