H.P.PUTTASWAMY Vs. THIMMAMMA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. -
(1.)The main dispute involved in this appeal concerns the question of necessity of presence of a purchaser of immovable
property before the authority under the Registration Act, 1908 at
the time of effecting registration of a deed of conveyance. In the
suit, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed
declaration of himself as the lawful owner in possession of the
suit property. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. This suit
was instituted on 31st March 1989 and was registered as Original
Suit No.132 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Malavalli. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction
against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his
peaceful possession of the suit property and enjoyment thereof.
The property in question comprises of approximately 4500 square
ft. of land in a village by the name of Hittanahalli Koppalu in
Malavallu Taluk in the State of Karnataka. Originally, this
property bore site No.21 which was subsequently numbered 23.
The plaintiff's case before the Trial court was that this property
was allotted to one Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda under a
village shifting scheme. In the suit, the plaintiff contended that
he had come in possession of the subject property initially as a
tenant and subsequently as the purchaser thereof. He has run a
case before the Trial Court that he has been in possession of the
suit property for about twenty years prior to filing of the suit.
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 in this appeal derived their interest in the
property through one Madegowda (since deceased), son of the
original allottee Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda. In the suit,
these three respondents were defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).
Their predecessor, Madegowda was originally impleaded as
defendant No.1. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are legal
representatives of one Manchegowda (since deceased), who
contested the claim of ownership of the plaintiff over the subject
property. Said Manchegowda was impleaded as the second
defendant in the suit. On his demise, respondent Nos.1 to 6 were
substituted as defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(f). They have disputed
plaintiff's possession of the suit property. They claim to be actual
owners of the property through their predecessor.
(2.)There have been litigations in the past over the same property among the same set of parties or their predecessors.
Madegowda had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction against Manchegowda. The earlier suit registered as
O.S. No.675 of 1971, was instituted in the Court of Munsiff at
Mandya in the year 1971 (subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.
61/1974) in the Court of Munsiff, Malavalli. Madegowda had impleaded the plaintiff and Manchegowda as defendants in the
said suit. Complaint of Madegowda in that suit was disturbance
of his possession. After contest at different levels of the judicial
hierarchy, that suit was ultimately dismissed on 23 rd March,
1989 at the instance of the plaintiff Madegowda only. The order of dismissal was made on as it appears from paragraph 4 of the
plaint of the suit from which the present proceeding originates
"For objection if any objection filed. Heard Sri N.G., C.S.S. K.S.S. The defts. 2 right as a tenant shall not be affected by disposes of the suit as per memo filed by plff. Suit is dismissed without cost."
(quoted verbatim from the paper book)
(3.)In the present proceeding, basis of the plaintiff's claim was an agreement for sale executed on 10 th April, 1981 between the
plaintiff and Madegowda in respect of the same property, which
was followed by execution of a deed of sale on 28 th May 1981. We
must point out here that the date of execution of sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff has been referred to in the Trial Court
judgment in some places as 21st May 1981. But that factor does
not have any major impact on the outcome of the case as both
these dates are subsequent to the date on which sale is claimed
to have been executed by Madegowda (since deceased) in favour
of Manchegowda (since deceased). That is the source of dispute in
the subject suit. We shall, however, treat 28th May 1981 as the
date of registration of the said deed as in course of submission,
that was the date referred to by the learned counsel for the
appellant. The subject suit was contested by the two sets of
defendants, being legal representatives of said Madegowda (the
first set) and the legal representatives of Manchegowda (the
second set). First set of defendants disputed genuineness of the
sale deed of 28th May 1981 which formed foundation of the
plaintiff's claim. Plea was taken by the second set of defendants
that the original owner, on 21st April, 1981, had executed a deed
of sale in favour of Manchegowda (since deceased). This set of
defendants have also disputed title of Madegowda over the suit
property. It has been contended on their behalf that the Village
Panchayat had cancelled the allotment to Gende Veeregowdana
Nathegowda and had resolved to issue grant certificate in respect
of the same site on 15th November, 1963 in favour of
Manchegowda and the latter was put in possession thereof.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.