Karnataka High Court
Property and Real Estate LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Unrebutted registered sale deed established title and entitled the plaintiff to recover possession.

SMT SWAPNA vs SAMPANGI RAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Unrebutted registered sale deed established title and entitled the plaintiff to recover possession.. SMT SWAPNA vs SAMPANGI RAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property under a registered sale deed executed in her favour by her husband, who acted as the general power of attorney holder of Hanumaiah, the original owner.

Source reference: paras. 3, 14; pp. 3, 9–10

She alleged that the defendants were in permissive possession and sought vacant possession after they refused to leave.

Source reference: paras. 3, 14; pp. 3, 9–10

The defendants disputed the general power of attorney and sale deed, and asserted ownership based on a Will.

Source reference: paras. 4–8; pp. 4–6

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not established title.

Source reference: paras. 4–8; pp. 4–6

The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Source reference: p. 2
02

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff proved that she owned the suit property and was entitled to recover possession from the defendants.

Source reference: para. 13(i); p. 9

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment and decree required interference.

Source reference: para. 13(ii); p. 9
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Source reference: p. 2

Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act are mentioned as provisions considered by the trial court in assessing the defendants’ Will, but the High Court’s decision does not turn on a separate application of those provisions.

Source reference: para. 8; p. 6
04

Reasoning

The High Court found that the plaintiff relied on the registered sale deed and evidence that the general power of attorney had been executed by Hanumaiah in favour of her husband.

Source reference: para. 15; pp. 10–11

It held that the certified copy of Hanumaiah’s written statement in an earlier suit did not prove that no such power of attorney had been executed.

Source reference: para. 15; pp. 10–11

The court also noted that the defendants had produced no evidence establishing their ownership.

Source reference: paras. 15–16; pp. 10–11

On that record, it concluded that the plaintiff had acquired title under the sale deed and was entitled to possession, and that the trial court’s contrary decision was perverse and contrary to the evidence.

Source reference: paras. 15–16; pp. 10–11
05

Holding

The High Court answered both issues in the affirmative.

The High Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree.

Source reference: paras. 16–17; pp. 11–12

It directed the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within nine months, with no order as to costs.

Source reference: para. 17; p. 12
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Indian Succession Act, 19251

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT SWAPNAvsSAMPANGI RAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU

Karnataka High Court · September 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment