GANGAMMA Vs. SHIVALLINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a Judgement dated 14-8-1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in RSA No. 205 of 1995, which was filed u/s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.1994 passed in RA No. 38 of 1990 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tarikere dismissing the appeal and thus affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Tarikere in OS No. 23 of 1985 dated 3.03.1990.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration of his title over the lands in suit. A sale deed dated 12.04.1940 was executed by one Mahalingaiah, father of Defendant 3. The contention of the defendant- appellant in the said suit, inter alia, was that the purported sale deed executed by Mahalingaiah in favour of minor Shivalingaiah represented by his father and guardian Muralasiddaiah was a sham and nominal transaction. The learned trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court also dismissed the appeal preferred thereagainst by the first respondent herein. However, a second appeal was preferred by the first respondent against the aforementioned Judgement and decree passed by the first appellate court before the High Court of Karnataka. The said appeal had been allowed by the impugned Judgement whereby and whereunder the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below have been set aside. The High Court in its impugned Judgement upon noticing the pleadings of the parties as also their respective contentions formulated the following substantial question of law for its determination:

(3.) By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while reversing the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court, inter alia, held that having regard to the provisions contained in Ss. 90 and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , the suit of the plaintiff-respondent should have been decreed.