Karnataka High Court
Sri M Prakash vs Sri Praveen Kumar A on 18 March, 2026
-1-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
RESERVED ON : 04.03.2026
R
PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1783 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI M PRAKASH
S/O LATE MARIYAPPPA,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO 154, 6TH MAIN,
6TH PHASE, 1ST STAGE,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHAGANPATHINAGAR,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SUNIL.K.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAMESH.K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR A
S/O ARAKESH BASKARACHAR,
AGED 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO 37, ARUNODAYA,
7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
NEAR SWIMMING POOL,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. SRI PUNEETH KUMAR K R
S/O PRASANNA,
-2-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
AGED 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO 63, 3RD MAIN,
3RD A CROSS, SVC NAGAR,
MUDALAPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O/D 11.09.2023 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN
OS.NO. 8005/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY,
(CCH.NO.18) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
The plaintiff is in appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure before us calling in question the
Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.2021 in
O.S.No.8005/2019 passed by the XVII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18) (for short ‘the
Trial Court’).
-3-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
2. The Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and
decree dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief
of declaration and injunction.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Trial Court.
4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this
appeal are as under:
The plaintiff filed a suit before the Trial Court for the
following reliefs:
a) Pass a judgment and decree, declaring that
the sale deeds (1) dated 5.4.2018,
registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, as
DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19, (2)
sale deed dated 7.12.2018 registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar,
Bengaluru, as DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-
009466/2018-19, (3) sale deed dated
4.6.2018 which was registered as
DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19
registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and (4)
-4-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
sale deed dated 16.08.2018 which is
registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as
Document No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19,
executed in the name of the plaintiff in
favor of the name of the defendant 1 and 2
respectively are null and void and they are
not binding on the plaintiff and the
schedule property belonging to the plaintiff.
b) Pass a judgment and decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants or
their agents, henchmen or anybody
claiming under them from interfering with
the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of
the schedule property.
c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court deems it fit under the facts
and circumstances of the case in the ends
of justice.
5. The plaintiff claims that he is the absolute
owner of residential apartment bearing No.SF 001 (duplex
house) on the eastern portion of the 2 nd floor of the
building constructed on the property bearing site No.20,
existing Municipal No.20, PID No.38-1-20, 1st Main Road,
Garden Villas Chalukyanagar, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru –
-5-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
560 072, BBMP old ward No.38, New Ward No.128 which
is more fully described as suit schedule property.
6. He further claims that he has purchased the suit
schedule property under registered sale deed dated
21.10.2015 bearing Document No.NGB-1-05421-2015-16
stored in CD No.NGBD 288 dated 21.10.2015 in the office
of the Sub-Registrar Rajajinagar, (Nagarabhavi),
Bengaluru executed by one N.Shanmugam.
7. He further claims that defendant No.1 herein
approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule
property, which the plaintiff was intended to sell.
Negotiations were held, wherein the sale consideration
was negotiated to Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Ten Lakhs only). On 16.01.2018, the plaintiff executed an
agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit schedule
property in favor of defendant No.1, for sale consideration
supra and received an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and it
was agreed between the parties that the sale process has
to be completed within three months.
-6-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
8. It is further claimed that defendant No.1 at the
time of agreement of sale requested the plaintiff to
provide copy of his PAN Card, copy of the sale deed, so
also the copy of the Khatha certificate stating that he has
to submit those documents to his banker to obtain the
loan to purchase the schedule property. The plaintiff in
good faith on defendant No.1 had given documents sought
by him. Thereafter, defendant No.1 did not turn up for
more than 1½ years from the date of agreement.
9. The plaintiff further claims that behind his back,
defendant No.1 got executed two registered sale deeds in
his favor through a fictitious person impersonating him.
One sale deed is dated 05.04.2018 registered in the office
of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as Document
No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19 and another sale deed is dated
07.12.2018 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as Document No.VJN-1-
09466/2018-19.
10. In the first sale deed, the apartment number is
mentioned as S-01 and in the second sale deed, it is
-7-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
mentioned as S-005 and all other remaining particulars
are the same. The plaintiff further claims that he never
executed any sale deed, much less the sale deed stated
supra in favor of defendant No.1 and the sale deeds are
creature of impersonation.
11. In the first sale deed, the consideration was
shown as Rs.1,10,00,000/- and in the second sale deed, it
was shown as Rs.86,00,000/-. He further claims that
defendant No.1 has created the aforesaid two sale deeds
in his name by impersonating and forging his signatures
with a malafide intention to make unjust enrichment.
12. He further claims that defendant No.2 is the
friend of plaintiff and are well known to each other.
However, this defendant No.2 is also in collusion with
defendant No.1 and created two more sale deeds, one is
dated 04.06.2018 which was registered as Document
No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19, in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and another sale deed
dated 16.08.2018 which was registered as Document
No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19, in the office of the Sub-
-8-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, by impersonating the
plaintiff and forging his signatures. In the sale deed dated
04.06.2018, the apartment number is shown as ST-005
old number ST-001 and in another sale dated 16.08.2018,
it is shown as ST-001. He further claims that, both the
defendants in active collusion, with the aid of some
fictitious persons, created these four sale deeds in the
name of the plaintiff by impersonating and forging his
signature and thumb impression without his knowledge.
He further claims that the photographs shown in the
subsequent sale deeds differ from that of the photographs
of the original sale deed, so also the signatures and the
thumb impression.
13. He further claims that when the matter stood
thus, the vendor of the plaintiff approached him to resell
the property in his favour. At that point of time, when the
plaintiff obtained Encumbrance Certificate relating to the
suit schedule property from the office of the concerned
Sub-Registrar, he found four sale deeds stated supra said
to have been executed by him in favor of defendants
-9-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
entered in the E.C. The plaintiff thereafter, obtained
certified copies of the four sale deeds and on verification
came to know about the fraud played by defendants.
Thereafter, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the
jurisdictional Chandra Layout Police on 30.06.2019. The
police upon the complaint, registered Crime No.121/2019
on 09.07.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 34,
120B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and arrested defendant
No.1, however defendant No.2 was absconding. The
investigation was under progress as on the date of filing of
the suit.
14. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants
taking undue advantage of the above four sale deeds may
come and interfere with his possession and enjoyment of
suit schedule property through some other third party, as
he came to know that some third party has started
enquiring about the suit schedule property at the instance
of the defendants. Accordingly, he filed the suit for the
aforesaid reliefs.
– 10 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
15. Upon registration of the suit in
O.S.No.8005/2019, the Trial Court issued notice. The
defendants despite service of notice, did not appear,
accordingly, they were placed ex-parte. The Trial Court
thereafter framed 5 point for consideration, which reads as
under:
CA±À 1:- ªÁ¢, ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 1 EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05-04-2018
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 07-12-2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 2 gÀªj
À UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
04-06-2018 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 16-08-2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ
PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÁ¢UÉ §zÀÞ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 2:- ªÁ¢ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ
±ÀÄ®Ì PÀ®A 38(1) gÀ Cr ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁzÀAvÀºÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì
vÀÄA©gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 3:- ªÁ¢AiÀÄ zÁªÁ C£ÀĸÀÆa D¹ÛUÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ
vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 4:- ªÁ¢ vÀ£Àß ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è «£ÀAw¹zÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðjgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 5:- AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ?
(Kannada Version, as it is in the
Judgment in Vernacular language)Issue No.1:- Whether the Plaintiff proves that the
sale deeds executed in favor of Defendant
No.1 on dated: 05-04-2018 and 07-12-2018,
– 11 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
and in favor of Defendant No.2 on dated: 04-
06-2018 and 16-08-2018, are not binding
upon the plaintiff?
Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff proves that the
proper Court Fee has been paid to the Hon’ble
Court under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act?
Issue No.3:- Whether the plaintiff proves that the
Defendants have caused interference/
obstruction to the plaintiff’s possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the
plaint?
Issue No.5:- What Order or Decree?
(English translation, as provided by learned
counsel for the appellant)
16. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim,
examined himself as PW-1 and produced 16 documents,
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and closed his side. Among the
said documents, Ex.P1 is the original sale deed executed
in favor of the plaintiff by M.Shanmugam and the other
four sale deeds which were marked as Ex.P5, P6, P7 and
P8 are the fictitious sale deeds as per the plaintiff.
– 12 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
17. The Trial Court after hearing the plaintiff
proceeded to record that the plaintiff has failed to prove
his case on his own and further held that he has not paid
appropriate Court fee as per Point No.2. As such, held that
the suit is not maintainable and further stated that the
judgment relied on by the plaintiff in AIR 2010 SC 2807
is not applicable as the facts in the case on hand are
different from the case in said judgment and proceeded to
dismiss the suit on all points. It is this Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court is called in question in this
appeal.
18. Heard Sri.Sunil.K.N, learned counsel for
Sri.Ramesh.K.R, appearing for the appellant. Vide order
dated 11.09.2023 – notice to the respondents is held
sufficient.
19. Sri.Sunil.K.N, on short point submits that the
reason of the Trial Court to non-suit the plaintiff on all the
aspects are stated at Paragraph No.16, wherein the Trial
Court has held that in order to establish that a document
is genuine, the disputed signature has to be obtained and
– 13 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
sent to the hand writing expert and only after securing the
information of the hand writing expert clarifying that the
document is genuine or not, the Court can consider the
said document, however, the plaintiff has not made any
such attempt to send the documents for handwriting
expert. In these circumstances, the Trial Court held that in
the absence of any attempt by the plaintiff to seek for
hand writing expert opinion, the Court cannot come to a
conclusion that the documents produced at Ex.P5 to Ex.P8
are created documents. On the basis of the same, the Trial
Court proceeded to hold that since the plaintiff has failed
to prove his case, the absence of the defendants will not
enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to accept his pleadings
and evidence and proceeded to dismiss the suit.
20. Learned counsel further submits that a perusal
of the documents at Ex.P5 to P8 when compared with
Ex.P1 – the original sale deed, differs with respect to
photographs, so also there is a difference in signature and
thumb impression which are clearly visible even to the
naked eye. The Trial Court has failed to consider this
– 14 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
aspect of the matter and in a haste, formed an opinion
against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, which is
erroneous and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he
sought to allow the appeal and decree the suit as prayed
for.
21. Having considered the submissions, we have
perused the entire appeal paper as well as the Trial Court
record.
22. As rightly contented by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, a perusal of Ex.P1, the
original sale deed wherein the photograph of the plaintiff is
found along with the signature marked as Ex.P1(a) and
(b), as well as the thumb impression, manifestly differs
with the photograph, thumb impression and signature of
the person found in Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, and the same are
clearly visible to the naked eye. The Trial Court has failed
to consider this aspect of the matter. Even the signature
found in each page in Ex.P5 to P8 differs to one another on
each page. This clearly shows that the plaintiff has been
impersonated and by forging his signature and thumb
– 15 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
impression, the documents at Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 came into
existence.
23. The finding of the Trial Court at Paragraph
No.16 is erroneous. The Trial Court has held that the
plaintiff has not sought for sending the document for
handwriting expert in order to ascertain the genuineness
of the document. The Trial Court failed to consider Section
73 of the Evidence Act.
24. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
enjoins the power on the Court to compare the signature
in admitted or proved documents to verify the
genuineness of the document in dispute, however, the
Court is guarded with extreme caution while comparing
the said signature/seal/writing with the admitted
documents.
25. For easy reference, we extract Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
73. COMPARISON OF SIGNATURE,
WRITING OR SEAL WITH OTHERS ADMITTED OR
PROVED. – In order to ascertain whether a signature,
writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports
– 16 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
to have been written or made, any signature, writing or
seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court
to have been written or made by that person may be
compared with the one which is to be proved, although
that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or
proved for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court
to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling
the Court to compare the words or figures so written
with any words or figures alleged to have been written
by such person.
26. Under the said provision, the Court is
empowered to compare signature/ handwriting on the
admitted and proved document and the signature and
thumb impression found on the other document, which is
disputed. The Trial Court has failed to compare the
photographs, thumb impression as well as signature
available in Ex.P1 which is admitted and the other
photographs, thumb impression and signature found in
Ex.P5 to P8 which are disputed, manifestly differs with the
original and admitted photograph, thumb impression and
signature. Even with the naked eye, the signatures found
in each page of Ex.P5 to P8 clearly shows that they are
forged one and have no similarities with one another. Even
the thumb impressions found in Ex.P.1 on one side and
– 17 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
found in Ex.P5 to P8 on the other, are not matching with
one another. In these circumstances, the finding of the
Trial Court especially at Paragraph No.16 is erroneous and
which is the main reason for non-suiting the plaintiff.
27. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in
catena of judgments held that it may not be necessary for
the Court in every case to send the documents to experts
if the tampering and/or alteration is obvious on the face of
the documents.
28. Our view gains strength from the recent
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SYED
BASHEER AHMED VS. M/S TINNI LABORATORIES
PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in 2025
INSC 1030 (reportable judgment). In the Judgment, the
Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that the Courts are not obliged in
every case to refer the documents to experts and secure
the expertise opinion, when the tampering and alteration
is obvious on the face of the documents.
– 18 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
29. In the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
appeal was preferred by the party against the judgment of
the High Court wherein the High Court while reversing the
judgment of the trial Court has held that there is clear
alteration insofar as recital with respect to item No.2 in the
agreement which is the base for the claim of the plaintiff,
relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
SETH LOONKARAN SETHIYA VS. MR. IVAN E.JOHN
AND OTHERS reported in (1977) 1 SCC 379.
30. The Hon’ble Apex Court having found that the
judgment of the High Court is based on the sound legal
principle, as the High Court found that the alterations is
clearly discernible, held that no case is made out to
interfere with the judgment of the High Court and rejected
the appeal.
31. Before adverting to exercise power conferred
under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on the
available record as the disputed records are the photo
copies of the originals, we have directed Sri.Mohammed
Jaffar Shah., learned Additional Government Advocate to
– 19 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
secure the records under the custody of the concerned
Sub-Registrar to verify with Ex.P1, wherein the
photograph, signature and thumb impression of the
appellant is admitted and proved.
32. Sri.Jaffar Shah., learned AGA upon direction
intimated the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar to submit the
legible photocopies as well as C.D, wherein the documents
are recorded. The office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar
furnished the legible photocopies of the Ex.P5 to P8 as well
as the document secured in the C.D in their office.
33. We have gone through the documents secured
in the Compact Disc and compared the same with that of
original Ex.P1 – the admitted and proved document. On
comparing Ex.P1 – the original admitted and proved
document with that of Ex.P5 to P8, the photographs,
signatures as well as the thumb impression are manifestly
differ and not matching with the original Ex.P1. The person
appeared in Ex.P1 is different in each Ex.P5 to P8, so also
his thumb impression and signature. The thumb
impression found in the admitted and proved document,
– 20 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
that is, Ex.P1 and the thumb impression found in the
disputed documents, that is, Ex.P5 to P8 manifestly
differs. Even the pattern of finger print changes from
Ex.P.1 – the original admitted and proved document and
that of the disputed Ex.P5 to P8. In Ex.P1 the finger print
pattern is in Whorls/Spiral shape, however in Ex.P5 to P8,
the pattern of finger print is in Loops/Lasso, that is, shape
of shell. Even the stroke of the signature at each page of
Ex.P5 to P8 differs, whereas the signature in Ex.P1 is
consistent and is admitted and proved. In these
circumstances, nothing more is required to come to a
conclusion that the documents at Ex.P5 to P8 are forged
and created by impersonating the appellant herein and by
forging his signatures as well as thumb impression. The
Trial Court ought to have exercised the power conferred
under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. However,
erred in law to consider this aspect of the matter which
has resulted in dismissal of the suit which is erroneous and
unsustainable in law, accordingly we answer Point No.1 in
favor of the plaintiff.
(emphasis supplied)
– 21 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
34. So far as point No.2 regarding payment of
Court Fee is concerned, the learned counsel relied on
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SUHRID SINGH @
SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2010 SCC 2807, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 has held as
under:
“6.Where the executant of a deed wants it to be
annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if
a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to
seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or
illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference
between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in
regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought
out by the following illustration relating to ‘A’ and ‘B’ –
two brothers. ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favour of ‘C’.
Subsequently ‘A’ wants to avoid the sale. ‘A’ has to sue
for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B’,
who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it,
he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed
by ‘A’ is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not
bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the
deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form
is different and court-fee is also different. If ‘A’, the
executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed,
he has to pay ad-valorem court-fee on the consideration
stated in the sale deed. If ‘B’, who is a non-executant, is
in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is
null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has
to merely pay a fixed court-fee of Rs. 19.50 under
Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if ‘B’, a
non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not
only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also
the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an
– 22 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
ad valorem court-fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c)
of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a
declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court-
fee shall be computed according to the amount at which
the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso
thereto makes it clear that where the suit for
declaratory decree with consequential relief is with
reference to any property, such valuation shall not be
less than the value of the property calculated in the
manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation
of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that
the deeds do not bind the “coparcenery” and for joint
possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the
executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court-fee
was computable under section 7(iv) (c) of the Act. The
trial court and the High Court were, therefore, not
justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to
seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that, therefore,
court-fee had to be paid on the sale consideration
mentioned in the sale deeds.
8. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside
the orders of the trial court and the High Court directing
payment of court-fee on the sale consideration under
the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001, 6.7.2001
and 27.9.2003 and direct the trial court to calculate the
court-fee in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with
Section 7(v) of the Act, as indicated above, with
reference to the plaint averments.”
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly said that
when a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has
to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or non-est or
illegal or that it is not binding on him and when a non-
executant who is in possession of the property and sues
for declaration that the deed is null or void and does not
– 23 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
bind on him or his share, he has to merely pay Court fee
on the value of the reliefs sought. In the case on hand, the
reliefs sought, especially at Prayer (a) to declare that the
sale deeds stated in the said relief as null and void and
they are not binding on the plaintiff and the suit schedule
property belongs to the plaintiff, accordingly the Court fee
paid on the value of the relief claimed is just and
sufficient. Accordingly, Point No.2 framed is answered in
the affirmative.
36. Since we have held that the documents at
Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 are all fictitious and created by
impersonating and forging the signature of the plaintiff,
there is all probability of defendants taking undue
advantage of the same and may cause interference with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by
the plaintiff. Accordingly, a case has been made out to
grant permanent injunction against the defendants as
sought in the suit. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in
favor of the plaintiff.
– 24 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
37. In view of answering Points No.1 to 3 in favor of
the plaintiff, the plaintiff has made out a case to answer
Points No.4 and 5 in his favor. Accordingly, Points No.4
and 5 are also answered in favor of the plaintiff.
38. In view of the foregoing reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Judgment and Decree dated
23.07.2021 O.S.No.8005/2019 passed by
the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18) is set
aside. The suit is decreed.
ii. The prayer as sought in Prayer (a) is
granted holding that (1) Sale Deed dated
05.04.2018, registered in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, as
Document No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19, (2)
Sale Deed dated 07.12.2018 registered in
the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar,
Bengaluru, as Document No.VJN-1-
– 25 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
009466/2018-19, (3) Sale Deed dated
04.06.2018 registered in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as
Document No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19 and
(4) Sale Deed dated 16.08.2018 registered
in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as Document
No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19, executed in the
name of the plaintiff in favor of defendants
No.1 and 2 respectively are declared as
null and void and not binding on the
plaintiff and the suit schedule property
belongs to the plaintiff.
iii. There shall be a permanent injunction
restraining the defendants, their agents,
and henchmen or anybody claiming
through or under them from interfering
with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
– 26 –
RFA No. 1783 of 2021
iv. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
However, no order as to costs.
v. Registry is directed to draw the decree
accordingly.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN