01Facts
Hemaraddi brought a suit seeking declaration of title to, and an injunction concerning, 7 acres 20 guntas in R.S. No. 96/2+3, claiming ownership under sale deeds dated 29 June 1972 and 17 April 1973
p. 3, 8The defendants disputed his exclusive ownership, asserting that the property had been purchased by his father in Hemaraddi’s name and that Hemaraddi and Venkaraddi held it jointly; they also relied on revenue entries and an alleged partition
pp. 4–7The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed Defendant No. 3’s appeal
p. 6Defendant No. 3, who had purchased part of the property during the suit, filed this second appeal
p. 4, 602Issues
i.1. Whether the concurrent findings that the plaintiff held exclusive title to the suit property were perverse or otherwise gave rise to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
pp. 8–11ii.2. Whether the revenue entries and alleged partition established an interest in the property sufficient to support Defendant No. 3’s purchase
pp. 6–7, 9–10iii.3. Whether Defendant No. 3, as a purchaser during the pendency of the suit, could claim protection as a bona fide purchaser against the decree
p. 1003Law Applied
Section 100 CPC confines a second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law; concurrent factual findings are not reopened merely to reweigh evidence unless they are shown to be perverse or otherwise raise such a question
pp. 10–11Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree or judgment in the pending suit, even if unaware of it
p. 10Mutation or revenue entries do not confer title; title must be established through legally relevant title evidence
p. 10The judgment cites no precedent.
Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 52
04Reasoning
The plaintiff produced the two sale deeds, and the defendants did not dispute that the purchases were made in his name. The defendants failed to prove that his father had purchased the property for him or that it was ancestral or joint-family property
p. 8The testimony of PW-2 that there was no ancestral property and that the plaintiff possessed the suit property exclusively was not challenged in cross-examination
pp. 8–9The revenue entries were disputed, and the alleged partition was not established; neither could displace the title evidence
pp. 9–10Because Defendant No. 3 purchased part of the property while the suit was pending, Section 52 bound him to the suit’s outcome.
p. 10The appellant’s arguments sought a reappraisal of evidence, which did not disclose perversity or a substantial question of law
pp. 10–1105Holding
The High Court held that the concurrent findings were supported by the evidence and that the appeal raised no substantial question of law.
pp. 11–12It dismissed the regular second appeal and directed that pending applications stand disposed of
pp. 11–12Original Court PDF
SANNAVEERAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HALLEPPANAVARvsBASAVAREDDI S/O. HEMARADDI MELAGIRI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
