K.N. NAGARAJAPPA Vs. H. NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals by Special Leave, a common judgment - in two second appeals (Dated 31.07.2008 in RSA Nos. 368/2002 and 736/2002) rendered by the Karnataka High Court- reversing the decree of the first appellate court, has been challenged.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purposes of this case are that the registered sale deeds were executed on 28.05.1973 in respect of distinct parcels of land. On the same day, one of the transactions related to the sale of three parcels, which is survey no. 36/1 (28 guntas); survey no.37 (1 acre 30 guntas) and survey no.28/2 (13 guntas)- collectively called "the suit lands " by common sale deed - exhibited as Ex-1 before the trial court. This document is not in dispute. In OS No.20/1985, the plaintiff/respondent and purchaser herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession as well as mesne profits in relation to the suit properties (hereafter called "the first suit "). The claim was premised on the fact that the plaintiff/respondents had purchased the suit properties by the registered sale deed from the appellants (defendants in the suit). It was contended that though the appellants had put the plaintiff/ respondents in possession, later, upon developing ill will, they moved the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights and proceeded to dispossess them, i.e. the plaintiff/respondents from the suit property. The Land Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellants; however, those findings were set aside by the High Court in W.P. 12662/1981. The question was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. This time round, the Land Tribunal directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of disputes. The plaintiff/respondent therefore filed the first suit, for declaration and possession. The appellants defended the first suit and denied the claims.

(3.) The appellants filed another suit - (OS 22/1985 hereafter referred to as the "second suit "). In the second suit, it was alleged that the sale deed Ex-1 in favour of the respondent (defendant in second suit) was a nominal one and was executed as a security for the loan advanced by the respondent. The appellants relied upon a document which they claimed was an agreement of sale under which allegedly the respondent had agreed to execute or reconvey the suit properties to the appellants. In terms of this agreement, the appellants were to pay ? 9000/- to the respondent within three years. Alleging that the respondent did not execute the sale deed, despite having received full payment of ? 9000/- with interest @ 15% per annum, the appellants filed the second suit for declaration, of title and permanent injunction and in the alternative, specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28.05.1973. The appellants also urged and claimed that they were in possession of the suit properties.