OPALAKRISHNA SETTY B R Vs. KANAKAIAH SETTY
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
OPALAKRISHNA SETTY, B.R.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal by the original defen-
dant-2 is directed against the judgment
and decree, dated 30-11-1974 passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Chitradurga,
in R. A. No. 2811971, on his file, dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree, dated: 15-2-1971 passed by
the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga in O. S. No. 3011970, on his file
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, as
(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of his title that he became the
owner of the suit property by virtue of
a sale deed executed by the first defendant in the suit, on 25-4-1966 for a sum
of Rs. 1,400. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub-
Registrar, Hosdurga on 18-8-1966. The
Sub-Registrar refused to register the;
document as per his endorsement dated
26-12-1966. Thereafter plaintiff took
up an appeal to the District Registrar,
Chitradurga and the District Registrar
directed the Sub-Registrar to register
the sale deed. Accordingly, the sale
deed came to be registered on 27-9-
1968. In the meanwhile the first defendant purported to
have sold the property in favour of the second defendant
for Rs. 2,300 on 27-12-1967 and sot it
registered on the same day. Thus according to the plaintiff, he became the
owner of the suit property and he
sought for possession of the property
from the second defendant.
(3.) The second defendant resisted the
suit by filing his written statement. He
contended that as he became the owner
of the suit property earlier, the suit of
the plaintiff was not tenable.
The trial court raised the following
issues as arising from the pleadings.
1) Whether the plaintiff proves his
title to the suit property?
2) Whether plaintiff proves 1hat defendant No. 2 had the knowledge of
sale deed in his favour dated 25-4-1966?
3) Whether defendant No. 2 proves
that the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in his favour dated
27-12-1967 binds the plaintiff?
4) Whether the suit has no cause of
5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to
declaration of title sought?
6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to
possession of the schedule property?
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to future mesne profits sought?
8) What order or decree?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.