OPALAKRISHNA SETTY B R Vs. KANAKAIAH SETTY
LAWS(KAR)-1981-10-6
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on October 19,1981

OPALAKRISHNA SETTY, B.R. Appellant
VERSUS
KANAKAIAH SETTY Respondents

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 prayed for.
(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 action? 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?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.