R.S.A. No. 1269/2015 (DEC). Case: Ashwatha Reddy Vs Krishna Reddy. Karnataka High Court
|Case Number:||R.S.A. No. 1269/2015 (DEC)|
|Party Name:||Ashwatha Reddy Vs Krishna Reddy|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Vishwanath R. Hegde, Advocate and For Respondents: Raghavendra, Advocate|
|Judges:||K.N. Phaneendra, J.|
|Issue:||Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49|
|Judgement Date:||March 28, 2017|
|Court:||Karnataka High Court|
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court in OS No. 67/2006 who filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the defendant (respondent herein). The plaintiff has claimed the ownership over the suit schedule property i.e., land bearing Survey No. 258 measuring 6 acres of Hudguru Village, D Playa Hobli, Gowribidanur taluk, stating that he acquired title to the property during his minority as his maternal grandfather made a gift of the suit property out of love and affection towards plaintiff by registering gift deed dated 25.7.1948. While writing the gift deed, under mis-apprehension that a gift deed could not be made in favour of a minor, the grandfather of the plaintiff executed a gift deed in favour of plaintiff's mother Narasamma. After attaining the age of majority, the plaintiff took management of the property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and he has also constructed a thatched roof house in the suit schedule property measuring east to west 36 feet and north to south 12 feet and he has been residing there in the said house along with the family members. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has dug a well in the said land. It is contended that the suit property was standing in the name of the plaintiff's mother and plaintiff's mother was dead long ago. It is contended that some time before the death of plaintiff's mother there were mis-understanding between the plaintiff and his mother due to that fact the plaintiff's mother was attempting to make a claim of the suit schedule property knowing fully well that the gift deed was executed virtually in favour of the plaintiff when he was a minor boy.
The plaintiff's mother in fact earlier executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 24.08.1978. As the relationship became strain, the mother of the plaintiff could not do anything and she wanted to fight with the plaintiff, hence she purported to execute a sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the defendant was a permanent resident of Banaganahalli and he was specifically brought to Huduguru village some time before the execution of the sale deed dated 29.10.1983 and he was asked to live in the house of one Narayanareddy etc., it is also contended by the plaintiff that the sale deed executed by his mother dated 29.1.1983, in favour of the defendant is only a nominal sale deed and that plaintiff's mother had no right to execute the sale deed. After the death of the plaintiff's mother, the defendant and his supporters have attempted to trespass upon the suit property and made efforts to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule property. Therefore, it made the plaintiff to file the suit.
It is also contended that defendant had also earlier instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff in OS No. 79/1984 and the said suit of the plaintiff got dismissed on 3.9.1996. The defendant also initiated revenue proceedings and the latest revenue proceedings ended before the Assistant Commissioner and in-turn, the Assistant Commissioner in RA No. 170/2001-02 dated 7.10.2005 directed the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL