A. Lewis & Anr. etc. Vs. M.T. Ramamurthy & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5066 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19240 of 2006)
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 & 718 of 2000]
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19240 of 2006)
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 & 718 of 2000]
Petitioner: A. Lewis & Anr. etc.
Respondent: M.T. Ramamurthy & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5066 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19240 of 2006)
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 & 718 of 2000]
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19240 of 2006)
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 & 718 of 2000]
Judges: Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 2007
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. S. Balaji, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. K.K. Mani, Mr. C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, Mr. K. Narayanan and Mr. Mayur R. Shah, Advocates for the Respondent.
Mr. S. Balaji, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. K.K. Mani, Mr. C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, Mr. K. Narayanan and Mr. Mayur R. Shah, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
PROPERTY LAWS/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 53A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XX, Rule 12 – Transfer of property – Agreement to sell Part performance of the agreement Protection under Section 53A When available to a person First respondent filing suits for declaration of title and for possession Suit decreed and consequently third respondent and others directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession Appellants staking their claim in respect of the property in question on the basis of a sale deed in their favour executed by the owner High Court analyzing the evidence on record and dismissing their appeal holding the said sale deed to be ante dated. Dismissing further appeal held that the protection under Section 53A would not be available if the transferee just kept quiet and remained passive without taking effective steps. Courts below having disbelieved the sale in favour of the appellants and considered the sale deed to be a subsequent thought to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, no interference was called for in the decree passed in favour of the first respondent. [Paras 6 and 7]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 53A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XX, Rule 12 – Transfer of property – Agreement to sell Part performance of the agreement Protection under Section 53A When available to a person First respondent filing suits for declaration of title and for possession Suit decreed and consequently third respondent and others directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession Appellants staking their claim in respect of the property in question on the basis of a sale deed in their favour executed by the owner High Court analyzing the evidence on record and dismissing their appeal holding the said sale deed to be ante dated. Dismissing further appeal held that the protection under Section 53A would not be available if the transferee just kept quiet and remained passive without taking effective steps. Courts below having disbelieved the sale in favour of the appellants and considered the sale deed to be a subsequent thought to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, no interference was called for in the decree passed in favour of the first respondent. [Paras 6 and 7]
JUDGEMENT:
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 13.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The appellants filed the above appeal seek-ing declaration of ownership over the suit prop- erty with recovery of possession and mesne profits.The suit property in question is in res-pect of two different portions of premises bear-ing No. 26, Nissan Huts, Austin Town, Banga-lore which originally belonged to Muniyappa, respondent No.3 herein (since deceased). On 23.12.1982, a registered sale deed was executed by respondent No.3 herein in favour of respondent No.1 Respondent No.1 issued a notice to respondent No.3 and the other occu-pants of the suit property for handing over possession of the suit property. A reply was sent by counsel on behalf of Defendant No.1 in each suit claiming that the sale deed pleaded by respondent No. 1 was not genuine and contending that respondent No.3 had entered into an agreement of sale on 04.10.1982 in respect of the said suit property in favour of the appellants herein for a sale consideration of Rs.14,000/-. It was also stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had already been paid as part of sale consideration and actual possession was also delivered to the said purchasers in part performance of the agreement to sell. Therefore, Respondent No.1 herein filed two suits bearing O.S. No. 10607 of 1985 and O.S. No. 10609 of 1985 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall at Bangalore claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for possession from first defendant, respondent No.2 herein, along with mesne profits. By common judgment, the learned trial Judge decreed the suits declaring respondent No.1 herein, as the owner of the suit schedule property and directed the appellants herein to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within six months from the date of the receipt of the order and also directed that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from 10.7.1985 and a further direction was also given to initiate an enquiry for determination of mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. Challenging the said judgment, defendant Nos. 3 & 4, appellants herein, filed R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000 and defendant No.2, respondent No.3 herein, filed R.F.A. Nos. 730 and 830 of 2000 before the High Court. The High Court dismissed all the four appeals with costs and directed defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to hand over vacant possession of the suit property within six months. Aggrieved by the judgment in R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000, this appeal has been preferred by way of special leave before this Court.
4. We heard Mr. S. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused all the relevant materials and records filed in this Court.
**********
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 13.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The appellants filed the above appeal seek-ing declaration of ownership over the suit prop- erty with recovery of possession and mesne profits.The suit property in question is in res-pect of two different portions of premises bear-ing No. 26, Nissan Huts, Austin Town, Banga-lore which originally belonged to Muniyappa, respondent No.3 herein (since deceased). On 23.12.1982, a registered sale deed was executed by respondent No.3 herein in favour of respondent No.1 Respondent No.1 issued a notice to respondent No.3 and the other occu-pants of the suit property for handing over possession of the suit property. A reply was sent by counsel on behalf of Defendant No.1 in each suit claiming that the sale deed pleaded by respondent No. 1 was not genuine and contending that respondent No.3 had entered into an agreement of sale on 04.10.1982 in respect of the said suit property in favour of the appellants herein for a sale consideration of Rs.14,000/-. It was also stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had already been paid as part of sale consideration and actual possession was also delivered to the said purchasers in part performance of the agreement to sell. Therefore, Respondent No.1 herein filed two suits bearing O.S. No. 10607 of 1985 and O.S. No. 10609 of 1985 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall at Bangalore claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for possession from first defendant, respondent No.2 herein, along with mesne profits. By common judgment, the learned trial Judge decreed the suits declaring respondent No.1 herein, as the owner of the suit schedule property and directed the appellants herein to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within six months from the date of the receipt of the order and also directed that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from 10.7.1985 and a further direction was also given to initiate an enquiry for determination of mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. Challenging the said judgment, defendant Nos. 3 & 4, appellants herein, filed R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000 and defendant No.2, respondent No.3 herein, filed R.F.A. Nos. 730 and 830 of 2000 before the High Court. The High Court dismissed all the four appeals with costs and directed defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to hand over vacant possession of the suit property within six months. Aggrieved by the judgment in R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000, this appeal has been preferred by way of special leave before this Court.
4. We heard Mr. S. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused all the relevant materials and records filed in this Court.
**********
