"Land Dispute: High Court Dismisses Second Appeal, Upholds Sale Deed Validity and Rejects Limitation Plea"

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, rendered a verdict in Regular Second Appeal No. 885 of 2017. The case revolved around a property dispute involving the validity of a sale deed and the alleged bar of limitation.

The judgment, delivered on August 17, 2023, upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment and decree. The Court meticulously evaluated the issues raised by the appellants and respondents and rendered its decision based on a thorough analysis of the arguments presented.

In a key observation, the Court noted, "The property was sold in favor of defendant No.1 is not in dispute and the Trial Court also having considered the pleadings of the parties framed the issues particularly with regard to the contention of the plaintiff that sale deed dated 4.5.1971 is concocted, created and fraudulent document and in order to prove the said fact into consideration, nothing is placed on record before the Trial Court."

The appellants contended that both lower courts had erred in not considering the material on record and in failing to grant a declaration of the sale deed as null and void, along with a permanent injunction. However, the Court found that the property sale was not disputed and that the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence to support the claim of a fraudulent sale.

Addressing the issue of limitation, the Court acknowledged the respondent's argument that the suit was not barred by limitation. The respondent's counsel pointed out that the plaintiff had been aware of the sale since the early 1970s, yet the suit was only filed in 2004. The Court concurred with the assessment of both Trial Court and Appellate Court that the suit was not barred by limitation, considering the plaintiff's knowledge and access to revenue court.

The Court emphasized that it could entertain a second appeal only if material evidence had not been considered or the order was deemed perverse. In this case, the Court concluded that no such circumstances existed to warrant invoking Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the judgment and decree, thereby bringing closure to the protracted legal battle over the property dispute.

Date of Decision  17^th August, 2023         

THIMMASHETTY, vs  HOMBALAMMA