Dismissed

Sri K Ramakrishna v. Smt Rangamma

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023RFA/465/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal filed against a decree dismissing a partition suit. The appellant contended the trial court erred in not accepting unchallenged oral evidence and claimed fraud against a registered sale deed. Finding no specific pleading of fraud, the Court declined admission and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Admission of the appeal declined and the appeal dismissed.

Sri K Ramakrishna Vs Smt Rangamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.465 OF 2009 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.355, 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND MAIN, K.H.B.COLONY, MAGADI ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 079.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY M/S. GIRIDHAR & CO., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. RANGAMMA, W/O LATE KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT MAGADI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶14

SRI. K. MAYANNA, S/O LATE KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.355, 2^ND PHASE, 2^ND MAIN, K H B COLONY, BANGALORE – 560 079.

¶15

SRI. T. MARIYAPPA, S/O THAMMAIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.62, 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶18

MARENAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 040.

¶19

SRI. BHARAT SINGH, S/O T. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶20

MIS. M. SANDHYA SINGH, D/O T. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶21

RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 HAVE ATTAINED MAJORITY AND ARE R/AT NO.62, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 040.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(R2 NOTICE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.11.2023 APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R1, R3, R4 AND R5 FOR NON-PROSECUTION)

¶24

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.569/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard Sri. S.V. Giridhar, learned counsel on behalf of

¶30

the appellant.

¶31

The present appeal is filed challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.569/2003 on the file of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-32) for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of property bearing No.9, I 'A' Main road, Marenahalli, Bengaluru-560 040, East to West 15ft and North to South 28ft bounded on East by passage, West by private property, North by T. Mariyappa's property and South by private property with the existing structure thereon (hereinafter referred as 'suit property').

¶32

The plaint averments reveal that the first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and second defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff constituting the Hindu Joint Family along with the plaintiff.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶34

It is further allegation of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff acquired the suit property during his life time and the same was got registered in the name of the second defendant on account of respect and taking note of that the second defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff.

¶35

The second defendant was working in Bengaluru Transport Services, II Depot, Shanthinagar Depot, Bengaluru and the plaintiff was also working in a private sector firm and all of them have contributed for the purchase of the suit property.

¶36

It is further contended that the suit property was purchased on 22.01.1973 and the second defendant due to his ill-health was in continuous treatment. It is also contended that on 04.05.1980, the second defendant went for the treatment and did not return to the house and he found missing from the year 1980. The plaintiff further stated that the plaintiff and the first defendant made

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶39

several attempts to trace out the second defendant and also lodged several complaints and issued paper publication to trace him. Despite such efforts, the second defendant was not traced.

¶40

Plaintiff further stated that the third defendant by creating false and forged documents succeeded to obtain a false sale deed in his name and said document is illegal and arbitrary and did not create any right, title or interest in favour of the third defendant in respect of the suit property and sought for share of the plaintiff in the suit property by partition and also with a prayer that the sale deed executed in favour of third defendant as void.

¶41

Despite the service of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 5 remained absent before trial Court and they were placed ex-parte .

¶42

Thereafter, the plaintiff adduced formal evidence by examining himself as PW-1 and relied on five documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs-P1 to

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶45

P5, comprising of certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.01.1973, certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.03.1995, encumbrance certificate, certified copy of gift deed dated 04.02.2000 and assessment extract of house No.62/2.

¶46

Defendants being exparte, the oral testimony of PW-1 remained unchallenged before the trial court. Thereafter, the trial court raised necessary points and recorded a categorical finding that there is no document on record to show that the suit property was purchased by the contribution of the plaintiff and other members of the joint family and it was only nominally registered in the name of the second defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal by contending that the trial court has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record, especially when the oral evidence of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶50

PW-1 remained unchallenged as defendants were placed

¶51

exparte .

¶52

Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the trial court has taken the seat of the defendants which is not expected to, especially when the defendants remained exparte and formal evidence has been placed on record in the form of oral evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence placed on record sufficiently establish the case of the plaintiff and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶53

Perused the material on record, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant. On such perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that the sale deed that is sought to be assailed by the plaintiff-appellant is a registered document. There is no requisite pleadings to term the sale deed executed in favour of the third defendant is a fraudulent document.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶56

Order VI of CPC contemplates that whenever a party alleges the fraud, there must be specific pleading as to the nature of the fraud that has been played while executing a document. The material on record does not contain requisite pleadings and so also there is no material evidence on record to hold that the duly registered sale deed is fraudulent in record. Further, unless the plaintiff obtains a decree stating that defendant No.2 died a civil death, question of second defendant being placed exparte in the trial court would not arise as admittedly, even according to the plaintiff, the second defendant is found missing.

¶57

In view of the above factual aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever, much less, good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration.

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:40479 RFA No. 465 of 2009

¶59

¶60

In view of foregoing discussion, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Admission declined.

¶63

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶64

No order as to costs.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri K Ramakrishna v. Smt Rangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Ramakrishna v. Smt Rangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Salam Vs Abdul Subhan

Smt Leelavathi Sundar Raj Vs Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Ltd.

Smt Lakkamma Vs Sri Mudalappa

Sri Y Venugopal Vs Sri Y Ramamurthy

Manjunath M Vs B v Venkatagiriyappa

Puttathimmegowda Vs Hanumegowda