Family members collude to deprive buyer of property

Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court has ruled in favour of a property buyer by decreeing the land in his name after a family tried to dupe him.

The property comprising 2 acres and 10 guntas of agricultural land, which was converted for industrial purpose, was owned by Javeed Hyder who had purchased it in 1985.

After Hyder migrated to the US, he executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of his brother Aslam Sayeed to sell the property. In August 2006, Sayeed executed a sale deed in favour of his wife Zareena Taj.

In December 2007, Taj and her children sold the property to one AV Chikkavenkateshappa, who got his name entered in the gram panchayat records and paid taxes.

Meanwhile, Hyder gave another GPA on the property to his nephew Shoaib Hyder, who filed a suit against Sayeed, Taj and their children claiming that Hyder is the owner of the property.

A decree was obtained and the gram panchayat records were once again transferred to the name of Hyder. Chikkavenkateshappa approached the Trial Court in which only Javeed Hyder and Shoaib Hyder filed statements.

The Trial Court held that the property belonged to Hyder, and Taj had sold the property to Chikkavenkateshappa, while the case filed by Hyder was still pending.

Chikkavenkateshappa approached the HC in 2012 and the judgement on his appeal was given recently by the bench comprising Justice PS Dinesh Kumar and Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda.

The HC said that the transfer of title to Chikkavenkateshappa was not challenged and it has not been set aside by any court.

“It is settled that transfer of title of an immovable property by a sale deed executed and registered with the jurisdictional sub-registrar shall remain valid unless it is set aside by a competent Civil Court,” the HC said.

The conduct of the family members was also taken note by the court. It said, “In view of the family relation between respondents No.1 to 6 and their conduct throughout, we are of the opinion that findings recorded by the Trial Court are unsustainable and plaintiff’s suit deserves to be decreed.”

While Sayeed, Taj and their children remained absent in the suit filed by Hyder, whereas in the appeal filed by Chikkavenkateshappa all of them including the original owner remained absent.

“The conduct of respondents No.1 to 6 to remain absent in this proceeding, prima facie leads to an inference that all family members had together joined hands in obtaining decree in. That judgment and decree is also without any contest,” the HC said ruling in favour of Chikkavenkateshappa. (RFA 1542/2012)