Nominal Sale Deed Upheld, Adverse Possession Rejected

The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad, per Justice Geetha K.B., dismissed a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC arising from a property dispute over agricultural land in Bellary district. The Court affirmed the First Appellate Court’s conclusion that the registered sale deed dated 28.04.1941 was nominal and sham, but disagreed with its finding that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession.

The suit was for declaration of absolute ownership and permanent injunction in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property, Sy.No.113 measuring 8 acres 84 cents. The plaintiff traced title through a family partition dated 14.05.1957 and pleaded that the 1941 sale deed had been executed only as security for a loan, with an oral understanding of reconveyance. According to the plaintiff, the original deed was later returned after repayment, and possession continued with the family.

The defence disputed the plaintiff’s claim. The litigation also involved a later sale deed dated 11.03.1993 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2.

The High Court examined the documentary history and the rival claims to title and possession. On the first substantial question of law, the Court held that the First Appellate Court was right in reversing the Trial Court and treating Ex.P.2, the registered sale deed dated 28.04.1941, as nominal and sham because no consideration had passed under the document. That finding was left undisturbed.

On the second substantial question of law, the Court held that the First Appellate Court was not right in concluding that the plaintiff had established title by adverse possession. The Court noted that although adverse possession had been pleaded, the plaintiff did not stick to that plea in evidence. The Court therefore rejected the alternative basis of title founded on adverse possession.

In the result, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 in R.A. No. 08/1999 were confirmed.

Practical takeaway: In property suits, a court may accept that an old sale deed was only nominal, but title by adverse possession still requires a clear and consistent evidentiary foundation.