Dismissed

R v. Rangappa v Neelamma

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2021RSA/308/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Regular Second Appeal No.308 of 2016, the High Court of Karnataka held that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge a sale deed executed by his mother regarding properties belonging to his brother Shankarappa. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed as the appellant had no substantial question of law arising and lacked locus to challenge the alienation.

R v Rangappa Vs Neelamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.308 OF 2016 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R V RANGAPPA S/O LATE RUKULA VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O SHRUNGERI MUTT STREET THOTAPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN – 563 131.

¶9

AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2021.

¶10

SMT. RUKMANIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE R.V.RANGAPPA

¶11

2 . SRI.R.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE R.V. RANGAPPA

¶12

3 . SRI.R.VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE R.V. RANGAPPA

¶13

A1 TO A3 ARE R/AT. SHRUNGERI MUTT STREET, THOTALAPALYA, MULBAGAL-563 131 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶14

4 . SMT.MANJULA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

D/O. LATE R.V.RANGAPPA W/O SRI.AMARISHA, R/AT. BALIJAPETE, KAIWARA, CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT..

¶17

... APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI.PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

NEELAMMA W/O R V SEENAPPA @ SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KUMBARPET, MULBAGAL TOWN – 563 131.

¶21

… RESPONDENT

¶22

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC 1908 RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2015 PASSED IN RA.No.148/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT13.09.2010 PASSED IN OS.No.500/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C III.ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,KOLAR.

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of

¶26

fact recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.500/2007 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.148/2010. Both the Courts held that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of

¶27

¶28

declaration that the sale deed dated 15.09.2003 executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 did not bind the plaintiff.

¶29

The judgment of the trial Court discloses that Rakula Venkatappa was the kartha of the joint family along with his wife Puttamma and his four sons namely one R.V. Rangappa (plaintiff), Shankarappa, Nagarajappa and Seenappa @ Srinivasa. It is submitted that after the death of the propositus, the four brothers succeeded to the ancestral and joint family properties and since they were all minors, their mother was looking after the properties. The third son Nagarajappa executed a release deed in favour of the joint family by accepting the consideration from the plaintiff. It is claimed that on 14.06.1987 there was a partition between the mother and three brothers, in terms of which, the suit properties were allotted to the share of one Shankarappa. The plaintiff contended that his mother was living with and the property that fell to her share was in his possession and enjoyment. He also

¶30

¶31

claimed that the area relinquished by his brother Nagarajappa was also in his possession and cultivation. He claimed that he used the land in Sy.No. 17/1, 17/2, 27/4 and his mother’s property in Sy.No. 27/4 as well as the property of Shankarappa for a manure pit. The defendant who is the wife of Seenappa claimed that the properties that had fallen to share of Shankarappa was conveyed to her by the mother of the plaintiff in terms of sale deed dated 14.03.2006. The plaintiff therefore contended that his mother was not entitled to convey the property of Shankarappa in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff also alleged that he had a right of pre-emption and the property had to be conveyed to the heirs apparent and not to anyone else. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by his mother in favour of the defendant was fraudulent and did not bind the plaintiff and consequently, sought cancellation.

¶32

3. The defendant contested the suit and claimed

¶33

that in terms of partition dated 14.06.1987, ‘C’ schedule

¶34

¶35

property mentioned therein fell to share of Shankarappa and that Shankarappa was residing at Bengaluru and since he was in need of money to meet his medical expenses and family necessities, he orally sold the properties that were allotted to his share in favour of his mother Smt.Puttamma. It is claimed that Shankarappa relinquished his property in favour of his mother and also permitted the revenue documents to be transferred to the name of his mother. Thereafter, the mother of the plaintiff had conveyed the suit property to the defendant in terms of the sale deed dated 15.09.2003 and placed the defendant in possession of the suit property. She also claimed that all the revenue documents in respect of property in question had been transferred to her name and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit property. Based on the rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶36

“ 1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the alleged registered sale deed dated 15.09.2003 in respect of its No.1237/03-04 is false,

¶37

¶38

fictitious created one and being null and void not binding on plaintiff and same requires to the cancelled?

¶39

2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in actual possession and enjoyment of suit properties as on date of suit within given boundaries?

¶40

3. Whether plaintiff further proves that the alleged interference to his possession by defendant?

¶41

4. Whether defendant proves that she had purchased suit schedule property from Puttamma under registered sale deed on 15.09.2003 for valid consideration as bonafide purchaser and it was sold out by her vendor, for her family necessity?

¶42

5. Whether defendant proves that the market value of suit properties is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and as such this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?

¶43

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief as prayed for?

¶44

7. What order or decree?”

¶45

¶46

The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and four

¶47

other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 5 and they marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P9. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and she examined two other witnesses as DWs. 2 and 3 and they marked the documents as Exs. D1 to D10.

¶48

The trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed

¶49

to prove that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the interference with the possession of the plaintiff by the defendant. Insofar as the issue regarding the validity of the sale deed dated 15.09.2003, the trial Court held that the sale deed in favour of the defendant was not executed by Shankarappa but by his mother and in the absence of any proof to show that Shankarappa had relinquished/conveyed his right in favour of his mother, the defendant could not claim any right, title or interest over the suit property. The trial Court held that the plaintiff did not prove his ownership over the suit

¶50

¶51

properties and did not establish that he was in possession of the suit properties. However, while answering the issue No.4, the trial Court held that the suit properties were conveyed to the defendant by Puttamma who was not the owner of the suit properties and therefore she could not convey any title to the defendant. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Having regard to the fact that PW.1 admitted that Shankarappa orally sold the suit property in favour of his mother and that the katha and pahanis of the suit property were transferred to the name of Smt. Puttamma, the trial Court therefore dismissed the suit property filed by the plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed R.A.No.148/2010. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration:

¶52

¶53

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 15.09.2003 and for permanent injunction?

¶54

2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference by this appellate court?

¶55

What order?

¶56

The First Appellate Court held that the

¶57

relationship between the parties was not disputed. It held that on 03.08.1981, one of the sons namely Nagarajappa was separated from the joint family who executed a release deed and received value of his share in the family properties. It also held that the partition was entered into on 14.05.1987 between the plaintiff, his two brothers and mother. The First Appellate Court also held that the properties that had fallen to share of Puttamma was assigned to the defendant in terms Ex.D1. Therefore, the First Appellate Court held that the burden to prove that Puttamma had no alienable right, title or interest was heavy on the plaintiff. First Appellate Court therefore held

¶58

¶59

that the sale deed cannot be termed void or illegal and thus, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

¶60

Being aggrieved by aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the present appeal is filed.

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently contended that his mother was residing along with him and that he was in possession properties that were allotted to the share of his mother as well as the share of Shankarappa. Therefore, he contended that the sale deed executed by his mother in favour of the defendant was fraudulent and therefore avoid and did not bind his right, title or interest in the suit properties.

¶62

When a query was put by the Court as to whether he had any right, title or interest in respect of the properties that fell to the share of Shankarappa, the plaintiff contended that except being in possession of the suit property, he had no document to establish that Shankarappa had given away the property to the plaintiff.

¶63

¶64

Therefore, even if the sale deed executed by Puttamma in favour of defendant without having any corresponding right in the property but yet it was only Shankarappa who was alone entitled to challenge the alienation and not the plaintiff.

¶65

In that view of the matter, unless the plaintiff establishes locus to challenge the alienation made by his mother in favour of the defendant, he would not get any right, title or interest to challenge the same. In that view of matter, since no substantial question of law that arises for consideration, the same is dismissed .

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

NR/-

R v. Rangappa v Neelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R v. Rangappa v Neelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant Director of Horticulture Vs Smt. Chikkamma

Nagaraju Vs G B Rajasekhar

[email protected] Vs R.Srinivasa

Sri Shivappa Vs Smt Neelamma

Eranna, Dead by Lrs Vs Sri. Siddaiah

Sri H S Ningappa Vs Sri H S Nanjundappa