REVANASIDDAYYA versus GANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 05-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 52 
REVANASIDDAYYA 
v 
GANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5039 of2009) 
DECEMBER05, 2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Suit: Two suit by parties against each other - Suit for a 
declaration and possessio11 - Suit for specific performance -
Original owner sold land to appellant - On part petformance of 
the agreement appellant placed in possession of the land - Death 
of the original owner before the execution of sale deed - Suit for a 
declaration and possession in relation to the suit land by 
respondent-LR 's of the origi11al ow11er, against the appella11t -
Dismissed insofar as the relief of possession but granted 
declaratory decree in respondellts' favour of their ownership over 
the suit land - Appellant filing suit for specific petformance of the 
agreement which was dismissed by trail court - Thereafter, first 
appeal by respondent - High Court decreed suit for possession 
against the appellant in relation to the suit land - On appeal, held: 
Possession of the appellant on the suit land, after the dismissal of 
his suit for specific petformance, became unauthorized and illegal 
thereby entitling the respondents to claim back the same from the 
appellant 011 the strength of their ownership - Appellant was, 
lwweFer, entitled to defend his possession over the suit land by 
taking recourse to the provisions of s. 53-A of the 1882 Act but 
once his suit for specific performance stood dismissed, the 
protection available uls. 53-A no longer available - Thus, the trial 
court as also High Court were justified in declaring the 
G respondents as owners of the suit land and the High Court was 
justified in passing a decree for possession agai11st the appellant -
Appellant directed to restore back the vacant possession of the suit 
land to the respondents - Respondents directed to refund the earnest 
money to the appellant within the stipulated period, else would carry 
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the said sum till payment - Transfer 
H of Property Act, 1882 - s. 53-A. 
52 
REVANASIDDAYYA v. GANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA 
53 
&ANR. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5039 
A 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2006 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.242 of 2004. 
Trideep Pais, Pranav Jain, Ms. Sanya Sud, Ms. Anjana 
Chandrashekar, Ad vs for the Appellant. 
B 
Ankolekar Gurudatta, Tomy Chacko, Shantha Kumar Mahale, 
Rajesh Mahale, Advs for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by 
C 
defendant No. I against the final judgment and order dated 25.10.2006 
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First 
Appeal No.242 of2004 whereby the High Court allowed the first appeal 
filed by respondent No. I (plaintiff) and modified the judgment/decree of 
the Trial Court dated 09.02.2000 passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil 
D 
Judge, Dharwad in O.S. No. 15I of I993 and accordingly passed a 
decree for possession of the suit land against the appellant in relation to 
the suit land. 
2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, which lie 
in a narr.:iw compass, few relevant facts need mention herein below. 
3. The appellant is defendant No. I whereas respondent No. I is 
the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.2 in a suit out of which 
this appeal arises. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the legal 
representatives of Veerabasayya, who was the original owner of the 
suit land. 
4. The dispute in this appeal relates to the land bearing R.S. No. 
E 
F 
I77/3A+3B admeasuring 7 acres 37 guntas, R.S. No. I6I/2A admeasuring 
I2 acres 36 guntas. Situated at Shiro! Village, R.S. No.24/5, admeasuring 
5 acres 02 guntas situated at Kallapur, R.S. No.3511, admeasuring I 
acre 22 guntas and R.S. No.35/2 admeasuring 3 acres I 0 guntas situated 
at Budihal (hereinafter referred to as "suit land"). 
G 
5. The respondents' father- Veerabasayya was the original owner 
of the suit land. He entered into an agreement (Ex-P-1) on 06.11.1986 
to sell the suit land to the appellant for a total consideration of 
Rs.I,75,000/-. In terms of the agreement, the appellant paid a sum of 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Rs.1,00,000/- to Veerbasayya towards earnest money and was, 
accordingly, placed in possession of the suit land by him. The sale deed 
of the suit land was to be executed within 3 months. In the meantime, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.