Case Note & Summary
The second appeal before the High Court of Karnataka arose from a judgment of the first appellate court which had decreed the suit of the plaintiff company, M/s. K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd., for declaration and injunction in respect of a property known as Tataguni Estate. The original suit was filed against the owner, Mme Devika Rani Roerich, and her private secretary, Mrs. Mary Joyce Poonacha. The plaintiff claimed that it had entered into an agreement to purchase the estate, paid the full consideration, and obtained a sale deed, but registration could not be completed due to the interference of the private secretary and the owner's ill health. The plaintiff also alleged that the secretary was trying to transfer the property to a trust. The owner denied the transaction, claiming she never agreed to sell and that her signatures were obtained on the pretext of managing the estate. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the sale deed valid and granting permanent injunction. The private secretary, as the second defendant, challenged this decree in second appeal. The High Court's judgment was delivered on June 17, 2021, but the text extract provided does not include the court's analysis, reasoning, or final decision, thus the outcome of the second appeal remains unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (06) 45
K.N.PHANINDRA, VAISHALI HEGDE, K.GANESH NAYAK, M RAVIPRAKASH, T H SAVITHA
M/S. K.T.PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD., MR. R. DEVDAS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for declaration that sale deed is valid and for permanent injunction restraining interference with possession and transfer of property.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought declaration that the sale deed dated 16.02.1992 executed by 1st defendant in its favour is valid and binding, and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the suit schedule property to any trust, society, or any other person, or from creating any charge, lien, encumbrance, and from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the Tataguni Estate, executed a sale deed after receiving full consideration, but avoided registration due to ill health and obstruction by the 2nd defendant, who was attempting to transfer the property to a trust for personal gain.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (II Additional Civil Judge, Sr.Dn, Bangalore Rural) passed judgment on 26.08.2002 in O.S.No.122/1992 dismissing the suit. The first appellate court (District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore Rural) by judgment dated 07.10.2006 allowed the plaintiff’s appeal R.A.No.33/2002, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and decreed the suit as prayed for. The appeal filed by the 3rd defendant R.A.No.35/2002 was dismissed.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff contended that it had entered into a valid agreement and sale deed with the 1st defendant for purchase of Tataguni Estate, paid full consideration of Rs.89,50,000, and was put in possession. Registration could not be completed due to the 1st defendant’s ill health and the obstructive conduct of the 2nd defendant, who gave false press statements and attempted to transfer the property to a trust. Plaintiff also relied on the fact that the 1st defendant had contradicted the 2nd defendant’s authority through a separate publication.
1st defendant in her written statement denied execution of the agreement and sale deed. She claimed she never intended to sell the entire estate, was not present during price negotiations, and that she was aged 84 years and not in good health when her signatures were obtained on some papers under the pretext of managing the estate and looking after paintings. The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant.
Judgment Excerpts
1st defendant executed a sale deed on 16.02.1992 in favour of the plaintiff-Company conveying the schedule property in the presence of the witnesses.
the Sub-Registrar told them that there is a direction from the State Government not to register any document executed by 1st defendant and her husband.
2nd defendant gave a paper publication in Indian Express dated 17.03.1992 stating that 1st defendant and her husband have authorized her to deal with their properties. But 1st defendant gave separate publication on 18.3.1992 stating that she has not authorized 2nd defendant.
1 st defendant was aged 84 years and was not keeping good health during May 1991 to March 1992
Procedural History
The plaintiff initially filed the suit (O.S.No.122/1992) against defendant Nos.1 and 2. After summons, the 1st defendant filed a written statement, adopted by the 2nd defendant. Subsequently, the 3rd defendant (R. Devdas) voluntarily got impleaded and filed a written statement. On the order of the first appellate court in R.A.No.3/1997, the Government of Karnataka was impleaded as the 4th defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit on 26.08.2002. The plaintiff filed R.A.No.33/2002 and the 3rd defendant filed R.A.No.35/2002 before the District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Bangalore Rural. The first appellate court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, dismissed the 3rd defendant’s appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and decreed the suit on 07.10.2006. Aggrieved, the 2nd defendant filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Companies Act, 1956:
- Income Tax Act, 1961: Chapter XX-C
