Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (Kullappa and Muniyellappa) against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2003 in O.S.No.2089/1986 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The suit was filed by the respondent (Smt. C.P. Vijayalakshmi) seeking declaration of title, possession, and future mesne profits in respect of suit schedule property. The undisputed facts are that the appellants, who are brothers, executed a common sale deed on 13.05.1984 in favor of the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.3,000/-, which was paid in one lump sum. However, the appellants did not deliver possession of the property to the respondent, necessitating the suit. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The appellants challenged the decree in this appeal. The High Court noted that the execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration were admitted by the appellants. The only issue was the non-delivery of possession. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the trial court's decree. The appeal against appellant No.1 had abated earlier. The court held that the appellants' failure to deliver possession after receiving full consideration entitled the respondent to the reliefs granted.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Sale of Immovable Property - Delivery of Possession - Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 CPC - The appellants, who were vendors, executed a sale deed in favor of the respondent on 13.05.1984 for Rs.3,000/- but did not deliver possession. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits. The High Court held that the appellants' admission of the sale and receipt of consideration, coupled with their failure to deliver possession, justified the decree. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants (defendants) are entitled to challenge the trial court's decree for declaration, possession, and mesne profits when they admitted execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration but failed to deliver possession.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment and decree dated 11.04.2003. The appeal against appellant No.1 had abated earlier.
Law Points
- Sale of immovable property
- delivery of possession
- mesne profits
- Section 96 CPC
- Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (06) 31
Regular First Appeal No.918/2003
V Padmanabha Mahale (Senior Counsel for appellant No.2), Abhinay P Patil (Advocate for appellant No.2), R S Hegde (Advocate for respondent)
Kullappa and Muniyellappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular First Appeal against a decree in a civil suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits.
Remedy Sought
The respondent (plaintiff) sought declaration of title, possession, and future mesne profits from the appellants (defendants) who were vendors of the property.
Filing Reason
The appellants executed a sale deed in favor of the respondent on 13.05.1984 for Rs.3,000/- but did not deliver possession of the suit property.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore) decreed the suit in O.S.No.2089/1986 on 11.04.2003 in favor of the respondent.
Issues
Whether the appellants are entitled to challenge the decree when they admitted execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration?
Whether the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued against the decree but the judgment does not detail their specific submissions.
Respondent supported the trial court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi
When a vendor executes a sale deed and receives full consideration, the vendor is obligated to deliver possession to the purchaser. Failure to do so entitles the purchaser to seek declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits. The admission of the sale and consideration by the vendors leaves no ground to challenge the decree for possession.
Judgment Excerpts
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.2089/1986 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2003.
The said fact is not in dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the said brothers together executed a common sale deed in respect of the entire suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on 13.05.1984 by receiving sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- in one lumpsum between them.
However, they did not chose to deliver possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff, which has necessitated the plaintiff to file the aforesaid suit for the relief of declaration of title, possession and also for the relief of mesne profits for the period when the vendors of the property continued to be in its possession after executing the sale deed.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.S.No.2089/1986 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking declaration, possession, and mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit on 11.04.2003. The appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) filed Regular First Appeal No.918/2003 in the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal against appellant No.1 abated on 07.11.2012. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 01.06.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
