SMT. SHYAMALADEVI vs ABDUL KHALAQ
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 322 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHYAMALADEVI
W/O. A D SETTY, AGED 57 YEARS
R/AT No.241 MARGOSA ROAD
MALLARU ARRAM
BENGALURU – 560 094.
NOW R/AT No.29, I MAIN
BALAJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
NEW B.E.L ROAD, RMV II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI S V ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ABDUL KHALAQ
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
MR. MOHAMMED SALMAN
S/O. LATE ABDUL KHALAQ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT DARGA MOHALLA
VIJAYAPURA – 562 135.
DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SATISH K & LOKESH M, ADVOCATES)
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:12.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.No.4589/1993 ON THE
FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
SHIVASHANKAR
ORDERS ON 10.09.2026, THIS DAY,
AMARANNAVAR J
, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4589/1993
th
dated 12.07.2019 by 24 Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore City,(CCH-6).
2. The parties will be referred to as per their rankings
as in the trial Court. The appellant was defendant and
respondent was plaintiff before the trial Court.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking the
relief of declaration, to declare that he is the absolute
owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property, holding that the alleged sale deed dated
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
27.12.1989 is null and void and not binding on the
plaintiff in any manner in respect of suit schedule site and
for cancellation of a sale deed dated 27.12.1989 and for
direction to jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for removing the
entries relating to the said deed in the registers and for
consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant
and her followers in any way interfering with the plaintiff's
lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and for costs and other reliefs.
4. The case of the plaintiff is as under:
( i) M/s.Chamarajpet Silk Handloom Weavers and
Exports Association(Regd), Azad Nagar, Bangalore,
is the owner of lands comprised in Sy.No.333/1 to
5, Sy.No.324/1 and 2 and part of Sy.No.335 of
Kempapura Village had formed layout of sites with
approval and sanction of BDA, and alienated the
sites in favour of various persons. The purchasers
have been in possession and enjoyment of their
respective sites and number of persons have built
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
house. Plaintiff has purchased one site bearing
No.86 measuring east-west 34 feet 6 inches and
north-south 30 feet under registered sale deed
dated 19.04.1985 for valuable consideration of
Rs.15,620/- from the above said association
represented by then President Mallappa and
Secretary Sri.S.Munivenkatappa and the said sale
deed was duly registered in the Office of Sub
Registrar and plaintiff became absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of the said property.
(ii) The defendant who is a stranger to the plaintiff
as well as suit schedule property, in the first week
of December 1992, along with her followers
attempted to interfere with the suit schedule
property to dispossess the plaintiff from suit
schedule property and the same was registered by
the plaintiff. The defendant asserted her alleged title
over the suit schedule property on the basis of
alleged sale deed dated 27.12.1989 from
M/s.Chamarjpet Silk Handloom Weavers and
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
Exports Association and on enquiry and verification
the plaintiff learnt that the said sale deed was
executed by one Sri.P.Rangaswamappa representing
himself as President of the said Association. The
said person has no authority to execute the sale
deed.
(iii) The alleged sale deed dated 27.12.1989 said to
have been executed by the said Rangaswamappa
representing himself as President of the Association
is a fictitious document executed without any
authority under law and it is invalid document and
the sale deed does not bind the plaintiff in any
manner.
(iv) Sri. P.Rangaswamappa was not President of the
Association at the time of execution of alleged sale
deed in favour of defendant. The said
P.Rangaswamappa who had indulged in such
unlawful activities by executing registered and
invalid sale deeds in respect of the sites which were
earlier disposed of by the then the validly and
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
legally constituted committee of management of the
said Association represented by its President and
Secretary, Mallappa and Munivenkatappa, do not
convey any title, interest or possession of any kind
in favour of such persons in whose favour such
alleged invalid sale deeds have been executed by
said P.Rangaswamappa.
(v) The Registrar of Societies in Case No.45/1961-
62 and in Case No.406 and 803/1998-99 vide its
order dated 31.03.1999, pleased to hold that faction
led by P.Rangaswamappa was genuine and
aggrieved by the said order, the genuine executive
members of the Association lead by Sri.S.Mallappa
and others have challenged the order dated
31.03.1999 passed by the Registrar of Societies in
W.P.No.29298/1999 and the Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to dispose off the said writ petition by its
order dated 02.12.1999, setting aside the impugned
order passed by the Registrar of Societies and
directed the Registrar of Societies to hold fresh
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
enquiry after issuing notices to all the affected
parties and consequently, the Registrar of Societies
after issuing such a notice to all the concerned
parties was pleased to dismiss the review petition
filed by the faction lead by Rangaswamappa and
further rejected earlier order dated 31.03.1999
passed by the Registrar of Societies and upheld the
said Order No.011/1991-92 dated 23.04.1992 and
in its order dated 02.03.2002 held that the faction
lead by S.Munivenkatappa is genuine faction and
the legal governing body and hence, the sale deed
dated 27.12.1989 executed by Rangaswamappa
claiming himself as President of the Association in
favour of defendant is a fictitious document.
(vi) The defendant taking advantage of the situation
and knowing very well that she has no right, title,
interest or possession of any kind over the suit
schedule property, attempted to interfere in the first
week of December and tried to interfere with the
plaintiff's possession over suit schedule property.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for
declaration that the alleged sale deed dated
27.12.1989 executed by said P.Rangaswamappa in
favour of defendant is null and void and do not bind
the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property
and for consequential injunction and prayed to
decree the suit.
5. The defendant filed written statement and taken
up the following defense:
(i) The defendant has denied entire plaint
averments and contended that she has
purchased the site No.86 measuring East-West
34 feet, North-South 30 feet, formed in
Sy.No.333/1 to 334/1-2 and part of Sy.No.335
of Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore for a sum of
Rs.20,500/- under sale deed dated 27.12.1989
from the Association and defendant was put in
possession of property and subsequently, the
Association also issued possession certificate
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
bearing No.035 dated 01.01.1990. Defendant is
absolute owner of property in possession and
enjoyment of the same from the date of
purchase i.e. 27.12.1989. The alleged sale deed
dated 19.04.1985 relied upon by the plaintiff to
substantiate his title in respect of site No.86 is
not a valid document. Sri.Mallappa and Sri.
Munivenkatappa where neither the President
and Secretary of Association nor competent to
convey the title on behalf of Association. As on
19.04.1985, BDA had not accorded approval to
the Layout and had not released the sites for
registration. The sale deed dated 19.04.1985 is
an invalid document. The plaintiff was not put in
possession by the Association on 19.04.1985
since the Association itself was not in
possession of the site and the plaintiff does not
derive any title in respect of Site No.86 by
virtue of a sale deed dated 19.04.1985. The
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
defendant further contended that since the
Association executed sale deed in the year 1989
after BDA accorded approval and released the
sites for registration in favour of its members.
The defendant acquires a valid title in respect of
Site No.86 and therefore, defendant is the
absolute owner of the property and in
possession and enjoyment of the same. No
cause of action arose for filing this suit and
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(ii) The defendant filed additional written
statement after plaintiff got amended the plaint
wherein the defendant contended that suit is
not maintainable and it is to be liable to be
dismissed. The plaintiff, though aware of the
orders passed by the Registrar of Societies
dated 02.03.2002, has deliberately kept silent
till the disposal of RFA No.734/2000 which was
dismissed on 18.07.2008 and when the plaintiff
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
could not succeed he has brought this fact to
the notice of this Court by filing Review Petition
No.335/2008. The Hon'ble High Court while
disposing of review petition was pleased to
order that in the light of the order of the
Registrar, all the grounds are left open and the
matter requires for his consideration.
(iii) In Case No.45/61-62 and in case No.406
and 803/1998-99, vide its order dated
31.03.1999 was pleased to hold that the faction
led by P. Rangaswamappa was genuine and
agreed by the said order the genuine executive
members of the Association led by S.Mallappa
and others have challenged the order dated
31.03.1999 and the Hon'ble High Court
disposed of the said writ petition vide its order
dated 02.12.1999 by setting aside the order
passed by the Registrar of Societies to hold a
fresh enquiry after issuing notices to all the
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
affected parties and consequently, Registrar of
Societies after issuing the notice to all the
concerned parties was pleased to dismiss review
petition filed by faction led by Rangaswamappa
and further rejected earlier order dated
31.03.1999 passed by the Registrar of Societies
and upheld said Order No.011/1991-92 dated
23.04.1992 and in its order dated 02.03.2002
held that the faction led by S.Munivenkatappa is
a genuine faction and the legal governing body
and hence the sale deed dated 27.12.1989
executed by Rangaswamappa claiming himself
as President of the Association in favour of the
defendant is a fictitious document. Even
otherwise, the plaintiff cannot claim to be the
owner of the suit schedule property as his sale
deed does not confer any right, title, interest or
possession over the suit schedule property as
the Society itself was not having a title or
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
possession over the suit schedule property as
on the date of alleged sale deed of the plaintiff.
The vendor of the plaintiff could not sell the
property which it did not have possession as on
the date of alleged sale deed dated 19.04.1985.
(iv) The order of the Registrar of Societies dated
02.03.2002 apply for the period from 1987 to
1999-2000 and directs Mr.S.Munivenkatappa
faction to submit the accounts of the society for
the period from 1987 to 1999-2000 within 30
days. The said dispute was not with regard to
the period during which plaintiff's sale deed was
registered on 19.04.1985. The said order of the
Registrar of Societies does not alter the status
of management committee for 1984 and 1985-
86. The revised list of management for 1984 to
1990 is not produced by the plaintiff. Therefore,
the list of management committee submitted by
the defendant for the year 1984 to 1989-90
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
holds good. Accordingly, the sale deed
executed in favour of plaintiff is done by
strangers to the Society. The plaintiff has not
produced revised list of management committee
for the year 1989, when sale deed of defendant
was registered.
(v) In the year 1989, Society was not in
possession of the suit schedule property. Hence,
the plaintiff did not derive any right, title,
interest, or possession over the suit schedule
property. The BDA, after collecting betterment
and other charges, has released the sites in the
names of individual members of the Society, in
or about the year 1989, and the Society in turn
has handed over possession of the sites allotted
to defendant vide possession certificate No.35
dated 01.01.1990.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
(vi) The defendant filed counter claim under
Order VII Rule 6(A) of CPC and contended that
the defendant has produced a list of
management committee for the years 1984 to
1985-86 and they disclose Munivenkatappa and
Mallappa were not the Secretary and President
during that period and the list of management
committee for the years 1984 and 1985-86 has
remained unchallenged. The BDA has released
the suit schedule site in the name of defendant
during 1989 on 13.12.1989 and therefore,
Society was not in possession of suit schedule
property before this date. The plaintiff has not
derived any right, title, interest or possession
over suit schedule property and the sale deed
dated 19.04.1985 is void ab initio and required
to be declared as null and void. This sale deed is
not binding on the defendant and requires to be
cancelled. The cause of action for filing counter
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
claim arose on 28.08.2012. The defendant
claims in the counter claim the relief of
declaration that the sale deed dated 19.04.1985
in favour of plaintiff as null and void and to
cancel the same and to direct the jurisdictional
Sub-Registrar to remove the entries relating to
the said sale deed in the registers.
6. The plaintiff has filed a rejoinder to the said
counter claim and contended as under:
(i) The plaintiff denied the contents of the
additional written statement filed by the
defendant. The plaintiff contended that the
Registrar of Societies in Case No.45/61-62 and
in Case No.406 and 803/1998-1999 vide its
order dated 31.03.1999 was pleased to hold
that the faction lead by P.Rangaswamappa was
genuine and aggrieved by the said order the
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
genuine executive members of the Association
lead by S.Mallappa and others have challenged
the order dated 31.03.1989 and the Hon'ble
High Court disposed of the said writ petition
vide its order dated 02.12.1999 by setting aside
the order passed by the Registrar of Societies to
hold a fresh enquiry after issuing notices to all
the affected parties and consequently, the
Registrar of Societies after issuing due notice to
all the concerned parties was pleased to dismiss
the review petition filed by the faction lead by
Rangaswamappa and further rejected earlier
order dated 31.03.1999 passed by the Registrar
of Societies and upheld said Order No.011/91-
92 dated 23.04.1992 and in its order dated
02.03.2002 held that the faction lead by
S.Munivenkatappa is genuine faction and the
legal governing body and hence the said deed
dated 27.12.1989 executed by Rangaswamappa
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
claiming himself as President of the association
in favour of defendant is a fictitious document.
7. On the basis of the said pleadings the trial
court has framed the following issues and additional
issues.
1. Does the plaintiff prove that he is
the absolute owner of the suit property?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that the sale
deed dated 27.12.1989 is null and void and
does not bind the plaintiff?
3. Is the plaintiff is entitle to the relief
of cancellation of sale deed dated
27.12.1989?
4. Does the plaintiff prove that he is in
lawful possession of the suit property?
5. Does the plaintiff prove unlawful
interference by the defendant?
6. To what relief?
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant proves that the
registered sale deed dated 19.4.1985 is null
and void and does not bind the defendant in
any manner as contended by her in her
additional written statement?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Court
fee paid on the counter claim of the
defendant is insufficient and Court fee ought
to have been paid under Section 38 of K.C.F
and S.V.Act as stated in para-4 of rejoinder?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that counter
claim set up by the defendant is barred by
time?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that relief
for declaration sought by the defendant is
barred by time?
8. The plaintiff has been examined as PW.1.
After death of plaintiff her husband has been
examined as PW.2. The plaintiff has got marked
Exs.P1 to P20 and the husband and power of attorney
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
holder of the defendant has been examined as DW.1
and got marked Exs.D1 to D20. The trial Court after
hearing arguments and by appreciating the evidence
on record has answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the
affirmative and additional issue Nos.1 to 4 in the
negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declaring
that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of
the said deed dated 19.04.1985 and further declared
that the said deed dated 27.12.1989 is null and void
and do not bind on the plaintiff and the said sale deed
is liable to be cancelled. The plaintiff is entitled for
relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant's
interference over plaintiff's lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial
Court dismissed the counterclaim filed by the
defendant. The said judgment and decree has been
challenged by the defendant in the present appeal.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
9. Heard the learned counsel for
appellant/defendant and learned counsel for
respondent/plaintiff.
10. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant
would contend that the Association was not in
possession of the suit site as on the date of sale deed
dated 19.04.1985 under which the plaintiff claims a
title. The plaintiff was not a member of vendor's
Association. The sale deed dated 27.12.1989 (Ex.D2)
has been executed by the Association in favour of the
defendant. The said Association is represented by
Rangaswamappa and K.Varadaraju based on the BDA
approved layout plan and release of sites by the BDA
in favour of the Association. Based on the said
documents, the Association has issued possession
certificate dated 01.01.1990 as per Ex.D3. The
declaration sought by the plaintiff is after 3 years.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
11. The learned counsel for appellant has filed IA
No.1/2026 under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to
BDA to produce the documents and other particulars
in respect of release orders dated 13.12.1989 made
by the BDA (Annexure-N in W.P.No.6379/1990). The
learned counsel for respondent has filed objections to
the said application by way of a counter affidavit.
12. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff
would contend that the plaintiff is purchaser of the suit
site from the association by sale deed dated
19.04.1985 to the sale deed under which the
defendant claims his subsequent sale deed dated
27.12.1989. The said Rangaswamappa and
K.Varadaraju who represented the Association are not
the office bearers as held by the Registrar in its order.
Sri.Mallappa and Munivenkatappa who represented the
Association were genuine office bearers and they had
authority to represent the society and execute the sale
deed and accordingly, they executed sale deed dated
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
19.04.1985 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P14 is the said
order of the Registrar of Societies dated 02.03.2002
wherein plaintiff's vendors Mallappa and
Munivenkatappa have been declared as genuine office
bearers. The other sale deeds executed by the
association represented by Rangaswamappa and
K.Varadaraju have been questioned in under appeal in
RFA No.423/2010 and RFA No.494/1997 and Ex.P12
wherein they have been declared as null and void.
Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has
rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The writ
petition filed by Rangaswamappa in W.P.8033/1998
has been dismissed by order dated 14.09.1995 and
Ex.P10. The application filed by the appellant/plaintiff
in IA No.1/2026 is after thought and such application
is not maintainable in the appeal. The said application
is filed to collect evidence by securing document from
BDA. The said document ought to have been produced
by the defendant if it is available before the trial
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
Court. The appellant/defendant has not made any
efforts to get the said document from the BDA. There
is no endorsement by the BDA that it will furnish the
said document to the Court if such order is passed by
the Court. The defendant has not taken up any such
contention in the suit as taken up in IA No.1/2026.
The said application is not maintainable with this he
prayed to dismiss the appeal and IA No.1/2026.
13. Having heard the learned counsels, this
Court has perused the judgment, decree and trial
Court records. The following point arises for
consideration:
(i) Whether the trial Court is
justified in holding that the plaintiff is owner
and in possession of suit schedule property
and entitled for relief of declaration of title
and injunction?
(ii) Whether the trial Court is
justified in holding that sale deed dated
27.12.1989 executed in favour of the
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
defendant is null and void and not binding on
the plaintiff and it is liable to be cancelled?
(iii) Whether the trial Court is justified
in dismissing the counter claim of the
defendant?
(iv) Whether the appellant/defendant
made out a case to allow IA No.1/2026 filed
under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to
the BDA to produce site release orders?
Re-point Nos.1 to 4
14. For the sake of convenience
M/s.Chamarajpet Silk Handloom Weavers and Exports
Association is referred to as “Association” hereinafter.
It is the specific case of the respondent/plaintiff that
he is the owner of suit schedule property bearing Site
No.86 in the layout formed by the Association in
Sy.No.333/1 to 5, Sy.No.334/1 and 2 and part of
Sy.No.335 of Kempapura Village measuring East to
West 34 feet 6 inches and North to South 30 feet. The
plaintiff claims that he has purchased the said suit
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
schedule property from the President of the
Association by name Mallappa and Secretary Muni
Venkatappa under registered sale deed dated
19.04.1985 and plaintiff is put in possession of the
said suit schedule property on the date of the sale
deed. The defendant who is the appellant herein
claims that she has purchased the suit schedule
property under sale deed dated 27.12.1989 (Ex.D2)
and it is executed by Rangaswamappa and
K.Varadaraju representing the Association. The
plaintiff's sale deed has been executed by Mallappa,
the President and Munivenkatappa, the Secretary of
the Association.
15. There were litigations between the Mallappa
and Munivenkatappa, the office bearers, and on the
other hand, Rangaswamappa and K.Varadaraju
claiming to be the office bearers of the Association.
The said dispute between the two factions came to an
end by the order of the Registrar of Societies dated
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
02.03.2002 (Ex.P14). The Registrar of Co-operative
Societies under the said order dated 02.03.2002
(Ex.P14) held that the Association lead by Mallappa
and Munivenkatappa are genuine office bearers of
Association and faction lead by Rangaswamappa and
Varadaraju is a fictitious body. The said order of the
Registrar of the Societies dated 02.03.2002 (Ex.P14)
has become final. The sale deed said to have been
executed in favour of the defendant dated 27.12.1989
(Ex.D2) is by Rangaswammappa and K.Varadaraju
who are declared to be not the genuine office bearers
of the Association by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies in the order dated 02.03.2002 (Ex.P14).
Therefore, the said sale deed executed by the said
Rangaswamappa and K.Varadaraju representing the
Association dated 27.12.1989 in favour of the
defendant is not a valid sale deed. The said sale deed
is not a valid sale deed since prior to the said sale
deed, that is on 19.04.1985, the Association
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
represented by its President Mallappa and Secretary
S.Munivenkatappa executed the sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff. Therefore, the Association represented by
Rangaswamappa and K.Varadaraju, who executed sale
deed dated 27.12.1989 in favour of the defendant,
had no authority to transfer the suit property, since it
already has been transferred by the Association
represented by Mallappa and Munivenkatappa (who
are declared to be the genuine office bearers by the
Registrar of Societies under Ex.P14). Therefore, the
said Association lead by Rangaswammappa and
K.Varadaraju had no title to execute the sale deed
dated 27.12.1989 in favour of the defendant.
16. The learned counsel for appellant/defendant
would contend that as on the date of sale deed dated
19.04.1985, (Ex.P1) executed by the Association in
favour of the plaintiff the sites were not released and
therefore, the said sale deed is not a valid sale deed
as this Association was not having possession of the
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
sites, since sites were not released in favour of the
Association. The said sites were released subsequently
in favour of Rangaswamappa and K.Varadaraju and
accordingly, they representing Association have
executed sale deed in favour of the defendant. The
learned counsel for appellant in order to substantiate
his contention had filed IA.1/2026 seeking direction to
the BDA to produce site release orders and other
connected documents. Even though the said
contention is taken by the defendant in his written
statement, but no efforts are made to secure the
documents in trial court now sought under IA
No.1/2026 from the BDA.
17. Ex.P19 is a resolution bearing No.288/93
dated 16.04.1994 of the BDA whereunder the sites got
released by P.Rangaswamappa (50 sites) by order
dated 17.11.1989 has been cancelled and the said 50
sites are ordered to be released in favour of the
members of the Association in whose favour said
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
deeds have been executed by President-N.Mallappa
and Secretary-S.Munivenkatappa. The said resolution
extract is produced at Ex.P19. The said resolution
itself indicates that earlier 50 sites were released in
favour of Rangaswamappa by order dated 17.11.1989
and subsequently, it came to be cancelled and those
50 sites were allotted to the purchasers of the sites
from N.Mallappa and S.Munivenketappa who executed
sale deed by representing the Association. Therefore,
the rights of the purchasers of 50 sites, whose sale
deeds are executed by the Association, which is
represented by N.Mallappa and S.Munivenkatappa are
protected. The said rights of the purchasers of 50 sites
is also protected under Section 43 of the Transfer of
Property Act.
18. The appellant/defendant prior to filing of the
said application has not made any application seeking
issue of certified copy of the documents sought for
under IA No.1/2026 and no endorsement has been
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
produced with regard to he filing application and
rejection of the same by the BDA to furnish the
documents. The appellant/defendant has not made
any efforts to get the certified copies of the said
documents from the concerned BDA authorities.
Therefore, there is no necessity of issue of any
direction to the BDA to produce documents sought
under IA No.1/2026. Accordingly, the IA No.1/2026
filed by the appellant/defendant is rejected.
19. It is trite law that title follows possession.
The suit schedule property is a vacant site. The
respondent/plaintiff has established his title over the
suit schedule property having purchased the same
from the Association under the sale deed in the
(Ex.P1) dated 19.04.1985. Therefore, the plaintiff has
established that he is having title over the suit
schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated
19.04.1985. Therefore, the said title follows
possession is rightly held by the trial court.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
20. Since the Association lead by its genuine
office bearers namely Mallappa and S.Munivenkappa
has executed sale deed transferring the suit schedule
property in favour of the plaintiff dated 19.04.1985,
the Association and the fictitious office bearers
Rangaswamappa and Varadaraju had no title to
alienate the very same site in favour of the defendant.
Therefore, the sale deed dated 27.12.1989
(Ex.D2=Ex.P3) is not a valid document and it is void
and not binding on the plaintiff.
21. The defendant has sought relief of
declaration of his title in the counter claim and also
sought that the sale deed dated 19.04.1985 executed
by the Association in favour of the plaintiff is null and
void and not binding on the defendant. The said
counter claim came to be rightly dismissed by the trial
Court on the ground that the sale deed dated
27.12.1989 executed in favour of the defendant is not
a valid document and it is void. Therefore, the trial
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58056
RFA No. 322 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010447172019
Court is justified in holding that the sale deed dated
27.12.1989 executed in favour of the defendant is null
and void and not binding on the plaintiff and it is liable
to be cancelled. Considering the above aspects, point
numbers 1 to 4 are answered, accordingly. In view of
the above, the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant
is dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DKB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55
Ct.sm