In Brief
The plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property under a registered Sale Deed dated 1964 (Exhibit P1) executed by the plaintiff and his brothers, followed by a purchase from an intermediary in 1973 (Exhibit P2). The defendants (Krishnappa and heirs) claimed the property was partitioned in 1971 and fell to Krishnappa's share. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit; the High Court allowed it, relying on the registered Sale Deeds. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings under CPC Section 100 without a genuine substantial question of law. The Court ruled: (1) Krishnappa, not a signatory to Exhibit P1, was not bound by it; (2) the unregistered partition deed (Palupatti) was admissible as a family arrangement and operated as estoppel; and (3) defendants could challenge the Sale Deed as nominal and never acted upon without filing an independent suit. The appeal was dismissed and the suit's dismissal was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.