This High Court dismissed a second appeal filed challenging a partition suit. The courts below held that the father sold the property in 1988 for family legal necessities (daughters' marriages) per deed recitals, negating any claim of ancestral property.
The second appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.S.A.NO.617/2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVAGANGAMMA W/O B.V.MAHADEVAIAH D/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI B.V.MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT B.G. PALYA VILLAGE HAMLET OF SOREKUNTE VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 107. … APPELLANT
[BY SRI P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE]
AND:
W/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 105
2
3 . SMT. NAVEENKUMARI D/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 105.
4 . SRI M.S.BOREGOWDA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 105.
5 . SMT.REKHA W/O M.S. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 105. … RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE]
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.111/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.152/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the arguments of
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3
4
suit schedule property and he was in possession of the same till 2008. Subsequent to the death of Shivanna, the 4th defendant being his only successor has succeeded the suit schedule property and he has become the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property and also by colluding with defendant Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff has filed the present frivolous suit.
5
Court also had taken note of the recitals of document – Ex.D1 that the husband of defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of grandfather of defendant No.4 to meet the marriage expenses of plaintiff and also to clear the domestic necessities. Undisputedly the said Gurusiddaiah was the Kartha of the joint family. Exs.D2 to 17 go to demonstrate that from the date of execution of Ex.D1, the revenue documents of the suit schedule property have been standing in the name of grandfather of defendant No.4 and thereafter father of defendant No.4 and now jointly in the names of defendant Nos.4 and 5.
6
grounds urged in the appeal also formulated a point for consideration i.e., whether the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property?
7
8
year 1988 and that to for performing the marriage of the daughters. When such being the evidence available before the Court and in order to prove that it is a joint family property, no documents are placed except the RTC as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before this Court and the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court on reappreciation considered the document of Ex.D1 and also the other evidence available on record and the property was sold in the year 1988 itself and the suit is filed in the year 2015 after almost lapse of 27 years claiming the share in respect of the suit schedule property, which has already been sold by the father during his lifetime that too for family legal necessity and the same is evident in Ex.D1.
9
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should admit the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC when the lower courts found the sale was for family legal necessities based on sale deed recitals.
Whether the suit property is ancestral or joint family property given the sale by the father during his lifetime.
Whether substantial questions of law arose to warrant allowing the second appeal dismissing the partition suit.
Smt. Shivagangamma
Smt. Ambikamma
Smt. Latha
Smt. Naveenkumari
Sri M.S. Boregowda
Smt. Rekha
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
