Dismissed

Sri Venkatesh v. Sri Dasappa

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022RSA/825/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendant challenging the title declaration of plaintiffs. Upholding the concurrent findings of lower courts, the bench held that the evidence clearly showed the ancestor sold the entire extent of land, validating the plaintiffs' chain of title.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed, maintaining the judgment and decree of the Courts below.

Sri Venkatesh Vs Sri Dasappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE UDDIRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ACCU- POLICE HEAD CONSTABEL RESIDING AT THAVAREKERE VILLAGE GOWDIGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR-572139

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.LOKESHA.B.G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI DASAPPA S/O LATE SANNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT SRIRAMANGARA MAJARE SHIVARAMAPURA HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶13

SRI HULIYAPPA S/O LATE SANNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANGARA MAJARE SHIVARAMAPURA HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶14

¶15

SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE SANNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANGARA MAJARE SHIVARAMAPURA HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶16

SRI GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE SANNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANGARA MAJARE SHIVARAMAPURA HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶17

SRI KANTHARAJU S/O LATE SANNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANGARA MAJARE SHIVARAMAPURA HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶18

SRI JAYARAMAIAH S/O LATE SANNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMANGARA MAJARE SHIVARAMAPURA HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶19

NIRMALA W/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MADAPURA GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222

¶20

SAKAMMA W/O NATARAJU

¶21

¶22

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT KUNTARAMANAHALLI HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-572222

¶23

KENCHAMMA W/O LATE UDDIRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT KAREMADENAHALLI BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-572115

¶24

10. NAGARAJU

¶25

S/O LATE UDDIRAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ACCU- FARMER R/AT KAREMADENAHALLI BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-572115

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.49/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.302/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant No.3 who is questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction is decreed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶33

Plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking relief of declaration of title over the suit land bearing Sy.No.17/1 totally measuring 5 acre 34 guntas. Plaintiffs claimed that one Dasappa s/o Karethimmaiah was the original owner and in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs have further pleaded that said Dasappa had a wife by name Ningamma and four sons namely, Karethimmaiah, Puttaiah, Sannagiriyappa and Uddirayappa. The original owner along with his wife and sons effected partition under registered partition deed dated 16.08.1959 and in the said registered

¶34

¶35

partition, defendant No.1's husband namely, Uddirayappa was allotted 3 acre 34 guntas. In the said registered partition deed, wife of Dasappa namely, Ningamma was also allotted 2 acres of land towards her maintenance. It is further pleaded that Ningamma out of love and affection had gifted 2 acre of land which was allotted to her towards her maintenance under registered sale deed dated 16.02.1970 to Uddirayappa. Therefore, Uddirayappa became the owner to an extent of 5 acres 34 guntas, who inturn sold the entire property measuring 5 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.17 as well as other properties in favour of one Kambaiah s/o Rangappa under registered sale deed dated 03.12.1971. The said Kambaiah, out of 5 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.17, had sold 1 acre in favour of plaintiffs under registered sale deed dated 11.07.1978. The said Kambaiah had also sold 1 acre to one Lingamma w/o Karethimmaiah under registered sale deed dated 11.07.1978. Therefore, plaintiffs assert title on the basis of registered sale deed dated 11.07.1978 and also claimed

¶36

¶37

that they are in possession of the suit land and they have developed the same by investing huge sum.

¶38

The grievance of plaintiffs is that after the death of Uddirayappa, his legal heirs started acting adversely to the interest of plaintiffs and therefore, plaintiffs were compelled to file the present comprehensive suit in O.S.No.302/2013.

¶39

Defendants on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants dehorse the alleged alienations, contended that their ancestor Uddirayappa had retained 2 acres of land in Sy.No.17/1 which was earlier retained by propositus Dasappa and he was in possession and enjoyment over the property till his death along with his wife Ningamma. Therefore, defendants claimed that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 4 acres of land and along with other 2 bits measuring 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy.No.17/1.

¶40

¶41

The plaintiffs to substantiate their claim examined plaintiff No.4 as P.W.1 and one independent witness as P.W.2 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.11. To counter the claim of plaintiffs, defendants have not chosen to lead any rebuttal evidence.

¶42

The Trial Court referring to the title documents more particularly Ex.P.4, which is the sale deed executed by Uddirayappa in favour of one Kambaiah s/o Rangappa alienating entire extent of 5 acres 34 guntas and subsequent sale by said Kambaiah in favour of original plaintiff Sannagiriyappa under registered sale deed dated 11.07.1978 vide Ex.P.2, was of the view that plaintiffs have succeeded in demonstrating the flow of title. Referring to these title documents, the Trial Court was of the view that the original owner Uddirayappa was allotted 3 acres 34 guntas under registered partition deed dated 27.06.1959 as per Ex.P.9. In the said partition deed, his mother by name Ningamma was also allotted 2 acres, who inturn gifted the property in favour of Uddirayappa under

¶43

¶44

registered sale deed dated 16.02.1970 vide Ex.P.3. Referring to these title documents and in absence of rebuttal evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit.

¶45

The defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.49/2018. The Appellate Court having independently assessed oral and documentary evidence, has also taken note of the flow of title which is evident from paragraph No.19 of the judgment. Having taken cognizance of these documents, the Appellate Court was also of the view that plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their title over the suit schedule property. The Appellate Court has concurred with the reasons and conclusions of the Trial Court and consequently, appeal was dismissed. These concurrent findings are challenged by the defendants who have not chosen to lead any rebuttal evidence.

¶46

¶47

Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶48

If defendant No.1's husband namely, Uddirayappa acquired title pursuant to family partition under registered partition deed dated 16.08.1959, vide Ex.P.9 and also acquired 2 acres from his mother Ningamma under registered gift deed dated 16.02.1970, what clearly emerges is that Uddirayappa was the owner to an extent of 5 acre 34 guntas. Having acquired absolute title, he sold the same in favour of one Kambaiah under registered sale deed dated 03.12.1971 vide Ex.P.4, who inturn had sold 1 acre of land in favour of the original plaintiff Sannagiriyappa s/o Dasappa under registered sale deed dated 11.07.1978 vide Ex.P.2. The clinching evidence clearly demonstrates that defendants ancestor sold entire extent and has not retained any portion in Sy.No.17. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below is based on the legal evidence let in by the plaintiffs and in absence of rebuttal

¶49

¶50

evidence let in by the defendants. The judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any infirmity.

¶51

Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is

¶52

dismissed .

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

HDK

Sri Venkatesh v. Sri Dasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatesh v. Sri Dasappa

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

Sri B Pradeep Raj Vs C Vinod Kumar

Dr K T Venkatesh Vs Smt Basamma

Dr. Khurram Niaz Ahmed Shariff Vs K. C. Mahantesh

Smt Bhavani Vs M S Prakash

Partharajeurs Vs Savithrammanni

Govindaraje Urs Vs Jayammanni Dead by Lrs Parvathammanni