Dismissed

Sri Rangaiah v. Sri Hanumantharayappa

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2022RSA/718/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by purchasers of ancestral property who had bought land from the widow. The court held that the decree declaring properties as the widow's separate property could not bind the plaintiffs entitled to ancestral shares, dismissing the appeal and affirming the lower courts.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed maintaining the decree granting 1/4th share to plaintiffs; appellants can seek allotment up to the widow's 1/4th share.

Sri Rangaiah Vs Sri Hanumantharayappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶5

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.718/2021(PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.RANGAIAH,

¶8

*S/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT *BILIGERE VILLAGE ,

¶9

*GUBBI KASABA HOBLI AND TALUK ,

¶10

*TUMKUR DISTRICT .

¶11

SRI. VENKATE GOWDA,

¶12

*S/O VENKATARAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOVINDARAJAPURA, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶13

… APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,

¶17

S/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ SIDDAIAHAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O BELEGERE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶18

*CORRECTED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:18.01.2023.

¶19

¶20

NOW RESIDING AT ROOM N.210 GONDIVILLE TALAVU, ASHIRVADCHAL COMMITTEE, LINK ROAD, ANDERI EAST, BOMBAY – 69. 2. SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O DODDAHANUMAIAH, D/O LATE NAGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O BANDIHALLI, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101. 3. CHIKKANARASAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs., a GAVIRANGAIAH S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BILIGERE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 216. 4. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRs., a SRI. RAJA, S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O CHINDIGERE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101. b SEENAPPA DEAD BY LRs., b(1) SRI. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O CHINDIGERE,

¶21

¶22

	CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
b(2)	SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O CHINDIGERE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
3.	SRI. AMMAIAH,
	W/O CHIKKEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BALLAPURA, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT	– 572 101.
4.	SRI.REKHA,
	W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O KEMPANADODDERI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT	– 572 101.
5.	SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O GAVIRANGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BILIGERE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
	TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
6.	SRI. RAMAIAH, S/O LATE RANGANAIKA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
a	JYOTHI, W/O PRAKASH,
	AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
	R/O MALLAPPANAHALLI,

¶23

	4 KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
b.	SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O PRABHUVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
c.	SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O INDIRESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O NAGAVALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101.
d	SRI. MANJUNATHA,
	S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
e	SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
	BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BILIGERE, KASABA HOBLI,
	GUBBI TALUK,
	TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
7.	SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O BILIGERE, KASABA HOBLI,
	GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶24

¶25

SRI. VENKATASWAMAIAH, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O GOVINDARAJAPURA, HEBBU HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶26

… RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. NABEEL FOR SRI. H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV., FOR R-1, R-2 AND R-3(a); R-4(a), R-4(b)(1), R-4(b)(2), R-6(b) & R-6(c) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2022, NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶28

VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022, NOTICE TO R-4(b)(3 & 4) IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2021 PASSED IN R.A.No.81/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.No.154/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI.

¶30

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

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for partition, which has been decreed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶33

¶34

This second appeal is by the purchasers of portions of item Nos.2 and 4 respectively.

¶35

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The family tree which would be relevant is as follows:

¶36

Talegedara Naika(dead)
Wife not known(dead)
Gavirangaiah(dead)
Wife Puttathimmakka(dead)
Rangamma Nanjamma Puttamma Lakshmamma
(dead) (dead) (dead) (50 years)
Siddaiah Madaiah Ugraiah Chikkarangaiah
Siddegowda (90 years) (85 years) (dead)
(dead) (Residing Separately)
Siddananjappa HanumanthaRamappa Nagamma ChikkaNarsamma
(48 years) (65 years) (50 years)
Ramachandregowda Padmamma Dodda Hanumaiah (Residing Separately)
(dead) (40 years) (79 years)
(Not Married) (Residing Separately)

¶37

The plaintiff’s, who were from the three branches of Gavirangaiah, filed the suit seeking for partition stating that the properties were joint family properties and they were entitled to their legitimate share. It was stated that Lakshmamma, the 1^st defendant, had managed to get her

¶38

¶39

name entered in the revenue records and had alienated

¶40

the suit properties in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 6.

¶41

The 1^st defendant, Lakshmamma did not contest the suit. The defendants 2 to 4 contested the suit stating that the 1^st defendant was performing the Talwarike and hence enjoying the suit properties and as a consequence, the land was granted in her favour by the Government. It was stated that since the suit properties were her absolute properties, she was entitled to sell the same and defendants 2 to 6 were also entitled to purchase the same.

¶42

The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the suit properties were ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants the plaintiffs were each entitled to 1/4^th share in the suit properties. The Trial Court also held that the defendants 2 to 6 were unable to prove that they were bonafide purchasers.

¶43

The purchasers i.e., defendants 2 to 6 preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the

¶44

¶45

evidence, found no reason to disagree with the finding of the Trial Court, and had accordingly proceeded to confirm the decree and had dismissed the appeal.

¶46

As against these concurring judgments, the present second appeal has been preferred only by two of the purchasers, who were defendants 3 and 6, respectively.

¶47

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that Lakshmamma - the last daughter of Gavirangaiah had filed O.S.No.155/1994 against Chikkarangaiah and others, seeking for a declaration that the suit properties were her properties and this suit had ended in a decree in her favour and all the revenue documents stood in her name, and it was therefore clear that the suit properties could not be the ancestral properties of Gavirangaiah and even if they were the properties of Gavirangaiah, by virtue of the decree, it had become the separate property of defendant No.1 - Lakshmamma. He submitted that the appellants had purchased portions of the suit properties from Lakshmamma after she had obtained a decree, and

¶48

¶49

therefore, their purchases could not be nullified by grant of a decree. He also submitted that there was no prayer for declaration that the Sale Deed executed by Lakshmamma was not binding and therefore, the suit for partition could not have been decreed. He lastly submitted that the suit for partition was barred by limitation.

¶50

Admittedly, the suit properties were Inam lands and admittedly Gavirangaiah’s father was holding the village office and after his death, Gavirangaiah was holding the said village office. It is not in dispute that Gavirangaiah passed away about 50 years ago and after his death, the suit lands were granted to Puttathimmaka, his wife. Thus, the fact that the suit properties were granted because the family held the village office cannot be in doubt at all. As a consequence, on the death of Gavirangaiah and his wife Puttathimmaka, by operation of law, the suit properties stood devolved on their four children, equally and simultaneously. Defendant No.1 could not, therefore, have conveyed the portion of the suit properties 2 and 4 in

¶51

¶52

favour of the appellants on the assumption that she was the owner of the suit properties. The decree that she had obtained against third parties would not obviously bind the plaintiffs and the said decree would not transform her limited share into an absolute share. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that on the basis of the decree obtained by Lakshmamma, the properties purchased by them should be treated as separate properties cannot be accepted.

¶53

The next argument that the plaintiffs had not claimed for a declaration that the Sale Deed was not binding cannot also be accepted. The plaintiffs were only concerned with claiming their separate share and it would not be necessary in the eye of law for them to challenge the Sale Deed to which they were not parties. This argument also, therefore, fails.

¶54

The last submission that the suit for partition was barred by limitation cannot be also accepted, since it is not the case of anybody that the plaintiffs were excluded from

¶55

¶56

joint family properties in order to attract Article 110 of the Limitation Act. This argument also, therefore, fails.

¶57

Having regard to the undisputed fact that the properties were granted because of the village office held by Gavirangaiah and his predecessors, the decree granted by both the courts in favour of the plaintiffs holding that they were entitled to 1/4^th share each cannot be found fault with. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this second appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶58

However, it is made clear that the appellants, who are purchasers of portions of Item Nos.2 and 4 from defendant No.1 – Lakshmamma would be entitled to seek for allotment of the properties that they had purchased, to the extent of Lakshmamma’s 1/4^th share in these properties in the final decree proceedings.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

GH/KK

Sri Rangaiah v. Sri Hanumantharayappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rangaiah v. Sri Hanumantharayappa

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

Smt.Y.Gowramma Vs Sri.D.N.Shukaraja Setty

Mr. Oswald Saldanha Vs Sri Kaliyamaradhana Krishna

S.Vijayakumar Vs C.Gurusiddaiah

Sri. Dharmaraja Alva Vs Sri. Megharaja Alva

Sri S Basappa Vs Gangamma

B C Puttaraju Vs Smt Gowramani