Partly allowed

G Vedamurthy v. Rangaswamy

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2023RFA/939/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a partition decree, the High Court set aside the trial Court's finding that the defendants were not bona fide purchasers since they bought properties for valuable consideration. Consequently, the suit regarding those specific properties was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The finding on Issue No. 2 was set aside, and the suit in respect of properties purchased by the appellants under registered sale deeds was dismissed.

G Vedamurthy Vs Rangaswamy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2007 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G. VEDAMURTHY S/O RANGAPPA, 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE - 577 551

¶9

CHANNAGIRI TALUK.

¶10

1A. SMT. G.V. KAMALA

¶11

W/O LATE SRI VEDAMURTHY 57 YEARS, R/O NO. 2366/5, SARASWATHINAGAR, DABA STOP, DAVANGERE - 277 005.

¶12

1B. SRI. ASHOK G.V.

¶13

S/O LATE SRI VEDAMURTHY 25 YEARS, R/O NO. 2366/5, SARASVATHINAGAR,

¶14

DABA STOP, DAVANGERE - 277 005.

¶15

1C. SMT. CHAITRA G.V.

¶16

D/O LATE SRI VEDAMURTHY, W/O MANOJ PATIL, 28 YEARS, THIMMALAPURA - 577 219,

¶17

HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

¶18

G. NAGARAJAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA, 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE - 577 551

¶19

CHANNARIRI TALUK.

¶20

... APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI: S.S. HAVERI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

AND:

¶24

RANGASWAMY S/O RUDRAPPA, MINOR

¶25

KUM. SHANTHI D/O RUDRAPPA, MINOR

¶26

KUM. SUMA D/O RUDRAPPA, MINOR

¶27

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA, MINOR

¶28

SMT. HALAMMA W/O. RUDRAPPA, MAJOR AGRICULTURIST

¶29

R 1 TO 4 ARE THE MINORS

¶30

REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER SMT. HALAMMA SND ALL ARE R/O DAGANAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 551

¶31

SMT. RANGAMMA W/O LATE. HANUMAPPA

¶32

MAHESWARAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA

¶33

RUDRAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA

¶34

SMT. LAXMAMMA D/O LATE HANUMAPPA

¶35

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE MAJORS AND R/O DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK.

¶36

SMT. NARASIMHAPPARA HANUMAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA BY TALAVAR CASTE, MAJOR

¶37

¶38

R/O KANIVABILICHI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK.

¶39

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA, MAJOR R/O KACHUGARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK.

¶40

11(A) SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O RANGAPPA (HUSBAND OF LATE SMT. JAYAMMA) AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O KANCHUGARANAHALLI.

¶41

11(B) SRI. G.S. RAVIKUMAR S/O SIDDAPPA AND LATE SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶42

11(C) SRI. G.S. CHANDRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AND LATE JAYAMMA, 48 YEARS.

¶43

11(D) SRI. G.S. PRAKASH S/O SIDDAPPA AND LATE SMT. JAYAMMA, 44 YEARS.

¶44

11(E) SMT. INDIRAMMA D/O SIDDAPPA AND LATE SMT. JAYAMMA, 39 YEARS

¶45

11(F) SMT. NETHRAMMA D/O SIDDAPPA AND LATE SMT. JAYAMMA, 34 YEARS.

¶46

ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT KUNCHUGARANAHALLI VILLAGE DAGANAKATTE POST - 577 551 CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

¶47

... RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI: MANJUNATHA PATTANA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5

¶49

¶50

V/O DTD: 23/10/2019 R6 IS DEAD, R7 TO R11 ARE TREATED LRS ALREADY ON RECORD. SRI: N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11 (A - F))

¶51

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED. 31.01.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.555/2000 (OLD NO.134/99) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) DAVANGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND MAINTENANCE.

¶52

THIS R.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.03.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

J U D G M E N T

¶54

Defendant Nos.7 and 8 in O.S No.555 of 2000 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) at Davanagere, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), are before this Court impugning the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part and holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties and further defendant No.3 is entitled for 1/6^th share and plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are entitled for 1/5^th share each in the share i.e., allotted to defendant No.3. Thus, holding plaintiffs are entitled for 1/30^th share each in the suit schedule properties.

¶55

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶56

to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶57

¶58

Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 have filed the suit O.S No.134 of 1999 which was renumbered as O.S No.555 of 2000, against defendant Nos.1 to 8 seeking partition and separate possession of their 3/4^th share in the share i.e., to be allotted in favour of defendant No.3 by metes and bounds in the suit schedule properties and to have a separate enquiry with regard to mesne profits and also for maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to plaintiff No.5. The schedule appended to the plaint describes 6 items of the agricultural lands, house and a vacant site and a kana situated at Kanchugaranahalli, Daginakatte village of Channagiri taluk, with the boundaries mentioned therein.

¶59

It is contended by the plaintiffs that one Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa is the common ancestor to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6. Defendant No.1 is the wife of Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa. The said Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa died leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 6 being his wife and children as legal representatives. The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of defendant No.3.

¶60

¶61

It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 constitute a joint family. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the married daughters of Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa. After the death of Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa, they are also his legal representatives.

¶62

The schedule Properties are the joint family properties succeeded by defendant Nos.1 to 6 from Late. Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa. Defendant No.1 was managing the joint family affairs and gradually, the husband of defendant No.6 took control over the joint family affairs and he has taken advantage of the ignorance and innocence of other children. The plaintiffs were thrown out of the house as they were opposing the intervention of husband of defendant No.6. Later the plaintiffs started residing in a room situated outside the family house. Plaintiff No.5 was permitted to cultivate survey No.138/01 of Kanchugaranahalli village to maintain herself and her children. The husband of defendant No.6 along with defendant No.1 dispossessed the plaintiffs and sold the same in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 on 09.02.1999. There was no necessity for the family to

¶63

¶64

alienate the said property and therefore said alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are the puppets in the hands of defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.6 were made as parties to the said sale transaction. Defendant Nos.7 and 8, who are aware of all these facts and circumstances still purchased the property under the sale deed and dispossessed the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 being guardian of other plaintiffs opposed alienation of the property and also demanded for partition and separate possession. The defendants were not ready and willing to effect partition.

¶65

It is also contended that the partition effected

¶66

between defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 29.05.1999 is only on papers, created with a malafide intention. It was suppressed from the plaintiffs to make wrongful gain for the defendants. Therefore, it is contended that the cause of action arose on 09.02.1999 and also subsequently and prayed for partition and separate possession of their share in the schedule properties.

¶67

¶68

Defendant No.3 has filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs, while admitting the relationship between the parties. It is admitted that the schedule properties are the joint family properties succeeded by defendant Nos.1 to 6 after the death of Hanumappa. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have divided the properties under the partition deed dated 09.02.1999 which was registered on 29.05.1999. It is also contended there is no cause of action for the suit.

¶69

Defendant No.3 further contended that he and defendant Nos.4 to 6 are the sons and daughters of Late Hanumappa. Defendant No.1 is their mother. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were physically disabled. They were attacked with polio and unable to move around without assistance. Therefore, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were entirely depending on the other members of the family. The husband of defendant No.6 was assisting the defendants in managing the affairs of the family. Since the family had incurred huge debt as Hanumanthappa @ Hanumappa was suffering from cancer, the loans were incurred. After the death of Hanumappa, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were depending upon defendant No.1.

¶70

¶71

In the meantime, defendant No.3 married plaintiff No.5. However, she deserted defendant No.3 and started residing in her parents house. She was leading unchastity life with one Jayappa S/o Doddabasappa of Kurubarahalli. Therefore, it is contended that plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are not the children born to defendant No.3. Accordingly, their claim that they are entitled for 1/4^th share is also denied.

¶72

Defendant No.3 further contended that he along with defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 divided the properties under the registered partition deed dated 09.12.1999, 3.02 acres of land in survey No.89 situated at Daganakatte village was allotted to the share of defendant No.3.

¶73

Defendant No.3 contended that he along with other defendants sold the portion of survey Nos.137 and 138 of kanchagaranahalli in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 under different sale deeds. The lands were sold to pay off the debts that were incurred to meet the medical treatment of their father and to improve the lands and also for their livelihood. Therefore, defendant No.3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶74

¶75

Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 have filed the memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.3.

¶76

Defendant Nos.7 and 8 have filed the written statement denying the contentions taken in the plaint and contending that defendant No.8 has purchased 4 acres of land in survey No.137 under the registered sale deed dated 12.02.1999 for valuable consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- from defendant Nos.1 to 4. Similarly, defendant No.7 purchased 3 acre 16 guntas of land in survey No.138/01 for consideration amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and 3 acre 39 guntas in survey No.137 for consideration amount of Rs.1,07,500/- under two different sale deeds dated 12.02.1999 and 29.05.1999. All the family members have joined in execution of the sale deed and since then defendant Nos.7 and 8 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of those lands. It is also contended that there was a partition in the family between defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 09.02.1999 under a registered partition deed. The plaintiffs have no right over the properties which are purchased by defendant Nos.7 and 8.

¶77

¶78

Defendant Nos.7 and 8 also contended that if for any reason the court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to any share in the schedule properties, the property that are sold in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 may be allotted to the shares of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in order to work out equitable partition. In the result, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶79

On the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration:

¶80

Issues

¶81

"1. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged mismanagement of suit schedule properties by the defendant - 1 and 6 and their dispossession from joint family properties?

¶82

2. Whether defendant - 7 and 8 prove that, they are bonafide purchasers of suit schedule lands Item No.2 and 1 respectively for valuable consideration?

¶83

3. Whether plaintiffs suit valuation and court fee paid is incorrect, and it is even defective for not praying the relief of cancellation of defendants sale deeds?

¶84

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition, if so, at what share and in which of the properties?

¶85

¶86

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits from the defendants?

¶87

6. For what decree or order?"

¶88

Additional Issues

¶89

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 are constituted a joint family?

¶90

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are sons and daughters of defendants No.3?

¶91

3. Whether plaintiffs prove that he defendants No.1 to 4 effected registered partition deed Dt.29.05.99 with an intention to defraud the interest of plaintiffs in suit schedule properties? "

¶92

Plaintiff No.5 examined herself as PW.1 and got examined two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 21 in support of his contention. Defendant No.7 examined himself as DW.1, defendant No.3 examined as DW.5, got examined other witnesses as DWs.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7

¶93

and got marked Exs.D1 to D.16 in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1, 4 and 5 and additional issues Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in

¶94

¶95

part holding that defendant No.3 is entitled for 1/6^th share and plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for 1/5^th share each in the share that was, allotted to defendant No.3. Thus it was held that, plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for 1/30^th share in the suit schedule properties.

¶96

Being aggrieved by the same defendant Nos.7 and 8 have preferred this appeal.

¶97

Heard Sri. S.S.Haveri, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Manjunatha Pattana shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri. N.Praveen kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 (a-f). Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

¶98

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that admittedly 3 items of the properties covered in survey Nos.137 and 138 are sold in favour of the appellants by defendant Nos.1 to 4 under Ex.D1 to D3. Defendant No.3 categorically stated about sale of the properties and the same was also admitted by other defendants. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 admitted that the properties were sold to meet the family necessities as Hanumanthappa was suffering from cancer to

¶99

¶100

meet the medical expenses, to repay the loan amount and also to improve the land, the properties were sold. Inspite of that, the trial Court proceeded to decree the suit without any basis. The appellants are interested only in two items of the properties which they have purchased under three different registered sale deeds. Under such circumstances, learned counsel submitted that if these three items of properties were allotted to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 4 that would work out equity.

¶101

Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Murtaza Fazal Ali and E.S.Venkataramaiah J.J¹ and Basavanappa Vs. Gurappa Ankalkoti² and others in support of his contention that the properties that are already sold should be allotted to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 4 so that equity could be worked out. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶102

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposing the appeal submitted that the dispute between the members of the family was pending, even before execution of

¶103

1 AIR 1983 SC 124

¶104

2 ILR 1999 KAR 3994

¶105

¶106

the sale deeds. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 were very much aware of the dispute in the family. Defendant No.3 is examined as Defendant No.7 who categorically stated that the sale deed in question was executed as a nominal one. Under these circumstances, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for a specific share from out of the share i.e., to be allotted to the share of defendant No.3. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶107

In view of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶108

"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"

¶109

My answer to the above point is in the 'partly in the Affirmative' for the following reasons:

¶110

REASONS

¶111

The plaintiffs are claiming to be the wife and children of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 denied his

¶112

¶113

relationship with plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 contending that plaintiff No.5 was leading unchastity life having relationship with another person. Defendant No.3 filed written statement opposing the claim made by the plaintiffs, and also stating that there was a partition in the family under registered partition deed dated 29.05.1999 and thereafter, three items of the properties were sold in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 under Ex.D1 to 3. However, the trial Court held that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are not the bonafide purchasers and the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties for which defendant No.3 is entitled to.

¶114

Defendant No.7 is interested in 3 acres 39 guntas of land in survey No.137 and 3 acre 16 guntas of land in survey No.138 which he had purchased under Ex.D1 on 09.02.1999 and 29.09.1999 respectively, by defendant Nos.1 to 4. Similarly, defendant No.8 is interested in 4 acres of land in survey No.137 which he had purchased on 09.02.1999 under Ex.D.2 from defendant Nos.1 to 4.

¶115

It is pertinent to note that defendant Nos.1 to 6 have categorically denied the rights of the plaintiffs to seek

¶116

¶117

partition in respect of the Schedule Properties and also contended that few items of the properties were already sold in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 under the registered sale deeds. They also referred to the registered partition deed entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 09.02.1999.

¶118

Plaintiff No.5 examined herself as PW-1. Even though she has asserted her right over the Schedule Properties, she has categorically admitted about the registered sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8. However, she would state that those sale deeds are only the nominal sale deeds. The original sale deeds are produced by defendant Nos.7 and 8 as per Exs.D1 to 3. These documents are registered in accordance with law and the vendors i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 4 have categorically stated that since the family has incurred huge debts for treating their father- Hanumanthappa, they are selling the properties. The sale deeds also refer to passing of the consideration amount by defendant Nos.7 and 8 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. There is absolutely no challenge to these registered sale deeds by the plaintiffs, even though they referred to the alienations made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in

¶119

¶120

favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8, much prior to filing of the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is only for partition without seeking any relief in respect of Exs.D1 to 3. There is absolutely no pleading in the plaint as to why Exs.D1 to 3 are to be ignored.

¶121

Defendant No.7 examined himself as DW-1 and reiterated his contention with regard to purchase of the property by him and defendant No.8. Exs.D1 to 3 were got marked during his evidence. During cross-examination, it is suggested to the witness that Exs.D1 to 3 are only the nominal sale deeds. The suggestion was denied by the witness. Witness pleaded his ignorance that the property which was sold was given in favour of plaintiff No.5 towards her maintenance. However, he denied the suggestion that plaintiff No.5 is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Witness states that there was a dispute raised by the plaintiffs, when he applied for change of khatha in the revenue records.

¶122

DWs.2 to 4 are the witnesses, who spoke about the sale of properties in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8.

¶123

¶124

Nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version. It is pertinent to note that DWs.3 and 4 are the attesting witnesses to Exs.D1 to 3. DW-5 is defendant No.3, who is the husband of PW-1 and father of other plaintiffs. He has also denied the claim of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession and categorically stated that the family properties were partitioned as per the registered partition deed dated 29.05.1999 produced as per Ex.D12. He stated that his father was suffering from cancer. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were handicapped and therefore, the family had incurred huge loan and therefore, three items of the suit properties were sold in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 under Exs.D1 to 6. DWs.6 and 7 have also supported the say of defendant Nos.7 and 8. Even though these witnesses were cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them in support of the case of the plaintiffs.

¶125

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that DW-5 has admitted during the cross-examination that the sale deeds were only the nominal sale deeds. After going through the entire cross-examination of DW-5, it is found that it is only a stray sentence where defendant No.3 admits the

¶126

¶127

suggestion that Exs.D1 to 3 are the nominal documents. Apart form that, there is no admission on the part of defendant No.3 with regard to the contention taken by defendant Nos.7 and 8.

¶128

30. Admittedly, the Schedule Properties are the

¶129

ancestral properties. Ex.D12 is the registered deed of partition dated 09.02.1999, where under, defendant Nos.1 to 4 got the family properties partitioned. The third schedule in the registered partition deed describes Sy.No.89, measuring 6.04 acres situated at Daginakatte, Channagiri Taluk was allotted to the share of defendant No.3. This fact is asserted by defendant No.3, when he was examined as DW-5. No one has challenged this document entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant No.1 being the mother was allotted a little larger extent of the land, while defendant Nos.2 and 3 were allotted 6.04 acres of land, while defendant No.4 was allotted 4.09 acres in Sy.No.98/1. It is pertinent to note that on the date of the partition entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 4, 3.39 acres of land and 4 acres in Sy.No.137 were sold in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 respectively under Exs.D1 and 2. Subsequently, on 29.05.1999, 3.16 acres of

¶130

¶131

land in Sy.No.138 was sold in favour of defendant No.7 under Ex.D.3. There is absolutely no reason as to why all the registered documents i.e., Exs.D1 to 3 and 12 are to be ignored. From the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that defendant Nos.7 and 8 have purchased 3.39 acres and 4 acres of land in Sy.No.137 and 3.16 acres of land in Sy.No.138/1, much prior to the date of the suit as per Exs.D1 to 3. The plaintiffs were aware of these documents. Inspite of that, they have not sought for any relief about these registered sale deeds. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 have categorically stated that there was a partition in the family as per Ex.D12. The same could not be denied by the plaintiffs, as the copy of the said document itself is produced before this Court. Even though the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants were crossexamined at length, nothing has been elicited from them.

¶132

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are not the bona-fide purchasers as they were knowing about the dispute regarding the Schedule Properties pending before the Tahsildar. No materials are placed before the Court to contend that there

¶133

¶134

was such dispute pending before the Tahsidlar regarding the Schedule Properties. During cross-examination of DW-1, it is elicited that there was a dispute with regard mutation of the name of defendant No.7 in the revenue records. Obviously, the said dispute is after execution of the registered sale deeds and not earlier to that. Under such circumstances, the same cannot be the reason to form an opinion that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are not the bona-fide purchasers.

¶135

The sale deeds- Exs.D1 to 3 specifically states that the consideration amount agreed between the parties is already paid. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is discrepancy in the matter of payment of consideration amount cannot be accepted as there are no material contradictions in the matter of payment of consideration amount. Moreover, it was defendant Nos.1 to 4 who executed the sale deeds and they have not disputed the fact that they have received the consideration amount. Under such circumstances, no significance could be attached to the contention taken by the plaintiffs regarding non-payment of the consideration amount. If at all the consideration amount under the registered sale deed is not paid, the only recourse

¶136

¶137

open to the parties is to seek recovery of such consideration amount.

¶138

The discussions held above disclose that defendant Nos.7 and 8 have purchased the property at an undisputed point of time from defendant Nos.1 to 4 under the registered sale deeds and there is clear recital in the sale deed about the ill-health of Hanumnathppa and have spent huge amount for his treatment and also about defendant Nos.2 and 3 being physically handicapped and thereby, incurring huge loan in the family. These facts are not proved to be false by the plaintiffs, but on the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence probabalises the same.

¶139

Under such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the bona-fide purchasers of few items of the Schedule Properties for valuable consideration under the registered sale deeds. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the said properties.

¶140

Even though as per Ex.D12, the properties belonging to the family were partitioned and specific share is allotted to defendant No.3, the trial Court proceeded to hold

¶141

¶142

that defendant No.3 is entitled for 1/6^th share and in the same, the plaintiffs are entitled for further share. Strangely none of the other defendants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to give any finding with regard to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the other issues.

¶143

The trial Court considering the materials on record while answering issue No.2 held that Ex.D2 was executed in favour of defendant No.8 during the pendency of RTC proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and therefore, both the defendants were knowing about the dispute and thus, they are not the bona-fide purchasers. There is absolutely no reason to form such opinion on the basis of the answers elicited from DW-1. The objection raised for mutation of the revenue records was after purchase of the properties by defendant Nos.7 and 8 and therefore, the same cannot be a reason to answer issue No.2 in the 'Negative'. The discussions held by the trial Court on issue No.2 regarding contradictions in the matter of payment of consideration amount is of no avail to the plaintiffs to deny

¶144

¶145

the claim of defendant Nos.7 and 8. The finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No.2 is erroneous and perverse. The same is required to be set aside.

¶146

Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

¶147

ORDER

¶148

(i) The appeal is allowed in part with cost.

¶149

(ii) The finding of the trial Court on Issue No.2 in O.S.No.555/2000 dated 31.01.2007 is set aside.

¶150

(iii) The suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties, which are subject matter of Exs.D1 to 3 is dismissed.

¶151

Office is directed to draw the preliminary decree accordingly.

¶152

Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.

¶153

Sd/JUDGE

¶154

Page Nos.1 to 16 - SKS Page Nos.17 to 25 - PN

G Vedamurthy v. Rangaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Vedamurthy v. Rangaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Puttaswamy Vs Sri Siddaiah S/O Late Sri Rachaiah

Smt Padma Vs Sri Manjunath v

Smt Galamma Vs Sri Venkatesh

Smt Shobavathi W/O Basavaraj Vs Sharanappa S/O Murigappa

Sri a Ramaiah Vs Smt Anusuya

Smt Anasuyadevi Vs Smt Sarasamma