Allowed

Basavaiah v. Jayamma

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023RSA/1093/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second appeal in a partition suit. It held that suit properties were ancestral joint family properties of all children of Shivaraiah, not just the plaintiffs. Consequently, the injunction against Defendant No.2 was dismissed as he is a co-owner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the trial Court modified; property declared as ancestral of parties; injunction dismissed.

Basavaiah Vs Jayamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAVAIAH

¶10

S/O YARRAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶11

SIDDABALLAMMA @ SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE BASAVAIAH SOREKAYIPENTE

¶12

C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216.

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

CHIKKANNA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVAIAH SOREKAYIPENTE

¶16

C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216.

¶17

KARIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PATRAVRUTHANA HALLI MAJARE GOLLARAHATTI C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216.

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶19

NAGARAJA

¶20

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVAIAH SOREKAYIPENTE, C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216.

¶21

YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS GURUBASAVAIAH MANTRIKENHALLI, GOLLARAHATTI TOREMAVINAHALLI POST TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶22

KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVAIAH SOREKAYIPENTE, C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216

¶23

RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVAIAH SOREKAYIPENTE, C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216

¶24

MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SOREKAYIPENTE, C. NANDIHALLI POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SMT. DEEPASHREE, ADVOCATE)

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶28

AND:

¶29

JAYAMMA MAJOR,

¶30

AMBIKA MAJOR,

¶31

SHIVAMMA MAJOR,

¶32

BASAVAIAH MAJOR,

¶33

GIDDAIAH MAJOR,

¶34

GANGAMMA MAJOR,

¶35

GOWRAMMA MAJOR,

¶36

MANJAMMA MAJOR,

¶37

RESPONDENT No.1 IS THE WIFE AND RESPONDENTS Nos.2 TO 8 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE SHIVARAIAH

¶38

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF YERRANAHALLI, CHEUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. A V GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶41

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 3.6.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI,

¶42

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶43

ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 11.9.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.155/2000 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), GUBBI.

¶44

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

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2014, passed in R.A.No.76/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi.

¶47

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is defendant No.2 and respondents are the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal in R.A.No.76/2008 and his legal representatives were already on record i.e., the plaintiffs.

¶48

The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶50

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the original propositus by name Shivaraiah had 5 children i.e., Giddaiah, Sannaiah, Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma. Defendant No.1 is the son of Giddaiah and plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the son of Chikkamma. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. It is contended that the suit properties originally belonged to Sanna S/o Chikka i.e., grandfather of Giddaiah, Sannaiah, Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma and he had a son namely Shivaraiah i.e., father of Giddaiah , Sannaiah , Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma and succeeded to the suit properties. It is contended that defendant No.2 is the stranger to the suit properties and defendant No.2 filed a

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶52

suit in O.S.No.121/1984 for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1, plaintiff No.2 and one Doddamma in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and another property bearing Sy.No.67/4. During the pendency of the said suit, the names of defendants No.2 to 4 in the said suit were deleted and defendant No.2 entered into compromise with the defendant No.1 in respect of suit item No.1 of the suit schedule property. On the strength of compromise decree, defendant No.2 got entered his name in the revenue records. The said entries were challenged by the plaintiffs before the Assistant Commissioner. It is contended that the decree passed in O.S.No.121/1984 is not binding on the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence this suit.

¶53

Defendant No.1 filed written statement

¶54

supporting the case of the plaintiffs and prayed to decree the suit.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶57

Defendant No.2 filed written statement

¶58

admitting the relationship of plaintiffs with defendant No.1. He has denied that defendant No.2 is stranger to the suit schedule properties. It is denied that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. It is admitted that defendant No.2 filed suit in O.S.No.121/1984 which was ended in compromise in respect of suit item No.1 and the same was allotted to defendant No.2, but denied that the decree was a collusive decree and defendant No.2 had not derived any title over the item No.1 of suit schedule property allotted in compromise decree. It is contended that Shivaraiah had 2 sons by name Sannaiah & Giddaiah and 2 daughters by name Chikkamma & Giddamma. The said Giddaiah had a son by name Shivaraiah i.e., defendant No.1. The said Chikkamma married one Yarraiah and defendant No.2 is the son of Chikkamma. The husband of Giddamma died long back. Chikkamma died leaving behind defendant No.2 as her legal heir. After the death of Chikkamma, Sannaiah brought up defendant

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶60

No.2 and he was looking after Sannaiah in his old age. During the lifetime of Sannaiah & Giddaiah, the father of defendant No.1 divided their ancestral properties and they are in possession of the properties allotted to their respective shares. After the death of Sannaiah, khatha was transferred in the name of Giddamma and defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 was never in possession of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.121/1984 for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and others. The said suit ended in compromise and suit item No.1 was allotted to defendant No.2. Hence, On these grounds sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶61

The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

¶62

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1?

¶63

2) Whether the plaintiff prove that they are in lawful possession of suit properties as on the date of the suit?

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶65

3) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendant No.2?

¶66

4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that decree passed in O.S.No.121/1984 is not binding on them?

¶67

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the suit?

¶68

6) What order or decree?

¶69

In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-1 and got examined one witness as DW-2 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.D1 to D10. The trial Court on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 partly in affirmative; issue Nos.3 and 4 in the negative; and issue No.6 as per the final order and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part with cost. It is ordered and decreed declaring that the suit item No.2 and 10 guntas of suit item No.1 is the joint family property of plaintiffs and

¶70

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶71

defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit for permanent injunction.

¶72

The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the above said suit dismissing a suit for permanent injunction, filed an appeal in R.A.No.76/2008. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for consideration:

¶73

1) Whether the impugned judgment is capricious, arbitrary one and against to the facts and probabilities of the case and the principles of natural justice?

¶74

2) Whether the impugned judgment requires interference at the hands of this Court?

¶75

3) What order?

¶76

The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and consequently allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in its entirety and it is declared that the suit schedule properties

¶77

are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and restrained defendant No.2 by way of

¶78

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶79

permanent injunction from interfering in the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, has filed this second appeal.

¶80

This court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :

¶81

"Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court was perverse in holding that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1?"

¶82

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶83

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that

¶84

the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 alone. She submits that there was a partition between Giddaiah and Sannaiah and in the said partition, the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of Sannaiah and defendant No.2 was looking after Sannaiah and after his death, he succeeded the suit schedule properties. She

¶85

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶86

submits that the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. She submits that defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.121/1984 for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and said suit was ended in a compromise decree and on the basis of compromise decree the defendant No.2 became the absolute owner of item No.1 of suit schedule property. She submits that the properties inherited by Sannaiah would not be an ancestral properties, but it becomes his self acquired properties as he died as a bachelor. The defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule item No.1 of the suit schedule property. She submits that defendant No.1 had accepted the possession of defendant No.2 in item No.1 of suit schedule property. She submits that both the Courts below have committed an error in passing impugned judgments and decrees. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶87

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶88

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that admittedly the suit schedule properties were owned by Sanna S/o Chikka and after his death Shivaraiah has succeeded to the suit schedule properties. He submits that there was no partition between the children of Shivaraiah and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. He submits that the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.121/1984 is not binding on the plaintiffs as they were not the parties in the said suit. He further submits that in the said suit the defendant No.2 has not pleaded regarding the alleged partition between Giddaiah and Sannaiah and he further submits that suit against plaintiff No.1 was dismissed. He submits that DW.1 has admitted in the course of cross examination that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. He submits that the trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs only in respect of 10 guntas of suit item No.1 as a ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The trial Court

¶89

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶90

committed an error in refusing to declare remaining 1 acre of land in item No.1 of suit schedule property as not an ancestral property. He submits that the plaintiffs aggrieved by the portion of the judgment refusing to grant relief in respect of remaining 1 acre of land in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and dismissal of suit for permanent injunction preferred an appeal in R.A.No.76/2008. The First Appellate Court was justified in modifying the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶91

Perused the records and considered the

¶92

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶93

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW : The plaintiff

¶94

No.1 was examined as PW.1 and has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 is the genealogical tree; Ex.P2 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing

¶95

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶96

Sy.No.67/2A stands in the name of Sanna s/o Chikka for the year 1967-68 till 1973-1974; Ex.P.3 is the RTC extract in respect land bearing Sy.No.67/2A which stands in the name of defendant No.2 from 1999-2000; Ex.P.4 is the RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.67/2C2 stands in the name of Sanna S/o Chikka; Ex.P.5 is the RTC extract in respect of land Sy.No.67/2C2 stands in the name of defendant No.2 and Sanna S/o Chikka, in column No.9 and in column No.12(2) stands in the name of Sannaiah from 1979-1980 to 1981-1982 and thereafter name of the defendant No.2 is shown in said column from 1982-1983 to 1984-1985; Ex.P6 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/2A stands in column No.9 and 12(2) in the name of Sanniah from 1974-1975 to 1978-1979; Ex.P.7 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/2A stands in the name of Sannaiah and defendant No.2 and Giddamma for the year 1979-1980 to 1983-1984; Ex.P.8 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/2C2 stands in the name of Sanna S/o Chikka and defendant No.2 in column No.9 and 12(2)

¶97

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶98

stands in the name of defendant No.2; Ex.P.9 is the copy of order passed by the Assistant commissioner which discloses that the defendant No.2 submitted an application to the revenue authorities to enter his name on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.121/1984. The Tahsildar, Gubbi, passed an order vide M.R.No.4/19992000 to enter the name of defendant No.2 in the revenue record. An appeal was filed against the M.R order before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to accept fresh mutation for 1 acre in respect of Sy.No.67/2A in favour of defendant No.2 as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.121/1984; Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of the order sheet of O.S.No.121/1984; Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.121/1984 filed by defendant No.2 and Giddamma against defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 and 3 others. Ex.P12 is the certified copy of written statement filed by defendant No.1; Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of the compromise petition; Ex.P.14 is the compromise decree

¶99

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶100

and Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of the application filed by defendant No.2 and Giddamma seeking for the relief of temporary injunction against the defendants in the said suit.

¶101

It is suggested to PW.1 that the defendant No.1 used to look after the affairs of the family. At the time of her marriage her father-in-law Giddaiah and Sannaiah were alive and she has seen them, it may be about 20 years back and further contended that Giddaiah died about 20 years back. She denies that Giddaiah and her elder brother Sannaiah died at the time of her marriage and it is denied that Giddaiah had two sons and 2 daughters and she do not know that Giddaiah had 2 sisters called as Giddamma and Chikkamma. She admits that Giddamma was with her. She pleads ignorance of marriage of Giddamma with Yarraiah i.e., mother of defendant No.2. She admits that Chikkamma had 2 children namely Basavaiah and Yarraiah. She denies that Giddamma after the death of her husband, she came and started to reside

¶102

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶103

with PW.1. It is denied that Giddamma lived with Sanniah. It is denied that Sannaiah was looking after defendant No.2 from his childhood and kept him in his house and it is denied that after the death of Sannaiah the defendant No.2 has performed ritual ceremonies. It is denied that there was a partition between Sannaiah and Giddaiah about 72 years ago and it is also denied that the suit schedule properties fallen to the share of Sannaiah and that the revenue records stood in the name of Sannaiah. It is admitted that after the death of Sannaiah the revenue records were transferred in the name of defendant No.2 and Giddamma. It is denied that she has no knowledge about the partition effected between Giddaiah and Sannaiah. It is denied that suit schedule properties were never in possession of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. She do not know that her father-in-law elder brother Sannaiah, Siddaiah S/o Siddappa purchased the land i.e., item No.1 dated 02.07.1960. It is denied that PW.1 and defendant No.1 quarreled with defendant No.2 in the year 1984 alleging that the suit schedule properties

¶104

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶105

belongs to them and at that time defendant No.2 and Giddamma filed a suit in O.S.No.121/1984 against her. It is denied that elders of the village have settled the issue between the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 and 2 and Giddamma. It is denied that 1 acre of land of item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted to defendant No.2 and 10 guntas of the property was allotted to defendant No.1. It is denied that said suit was disposed of by compromise decree. It is denied that defendant No.2 is enjoying the properties of Sannaiah as a foster son of Sannaiah. PW.1 admits that Sannaiah was unmarried. It is denied that defendant No.2 and his sons are in possession and cultivating 1 acre of land of suit item No.1 of the property and defendant No.2 is paying the land revenue of 1 acre of item No.1 of the suit property.

¶106

The plaintiff examined one Chikkanna as PW.2, who has deposed that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and plaintiffs

¶107

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶108

and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and defendant No.2 is not in possession of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. He has deposed that he knows the fact as his land is adjacent to the suit property. In the course of cross examination, he has stated that Shivaraiah had 4 children i.e., 2 sons and 2 daughters. He has deposed that he is not aware of Sanniah was unmarried and Sannaiah who was looking after defendant No.2 during his childhood and he was the foster son of Sannaiah. Further, after the death of her husband Giddamma started residing with Sannaiah.

¶109

In the rebuttal, the defendant No.2 was

¶110

examined as DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and got marked documents Ex.D1 is the certified copy of compromise petition filed in O.S.No.121/1984; Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the compromise decree; Ex.D3 is the copy of record of right pertaining to the suit schedule

¶111

21 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶112

properties; Ex.D4 is the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner; Ex.D5 is the report of Village Accountant requesting to change khatha in the name of defendant No.2 in respect of 1 acre and 10 guntas in the name of Shivaraiah in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/2A; Ex.D6 to D10 are the RTC extracts stands in the name of Sannaiah and Basavaiah pertaining to the year 19851990; Ex.D7 stands in the name of Basavaiah i.e., defendant No.2 and Giddaiah; Ex.D8 stands in the name of defendant No.2 for the year 1988; Ex.D9 and D10 are the orders. During the course of cross examination, he denies

¶113

the suggestion that he is not the family member of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. He admits that in order to show that he belongs to the family of Sanniah, he has not produced any documents. He has deposed that Shivaraiah had 3 children namely, Giddaiah , Sannaiah and Chikkaanna and he admits that Chikkanna was unmarried. He has not produced documents to show that there was a partition between Giddaiah and his brothers and his 2 brothers are no more. But he denies that after the death

¶114

22 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶115

of their brother, defendant No.1 and plaintiffs, they constitute Hindu undivided family. He admits that he and his brother Yarraiah are the children of Chikkamma and he further admits that defendant No.1 and his father were the members of Hindu undivided joint family and suit properties are the ancestral properties and he admits that even today defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule properties.

¶116

Defendants examined one Shivalingaiah as DW.2. He has deposed that defendant No.2 is in possession of 1 acre of land in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are not in possession of the suit schedule properties.

¶117

From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the suit schedule properties were standing in the name of Sanna S/o Chikka i.e., the original propositus. Sanna S/o Chikka had a son by name shivaraiah. Shivaraiah had 3 sons and 2 daughters namely Giddaiah, Sannaiah, Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma. The defendant

¶118

23 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶119

No.1 is the son of Giddaiah. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. Sannaiah and Chikkanna were unmarried and they died. Defendant No.2 is the son of Chikkamma. Giddamma i.e., sister of Giddaiah is alive. The records discloses that the properties were owned by Sanna S/o Chikka. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of defendant No.1 and his brothers and sisters. Though the defendant No.2 has taken a contention that there was a partition between Giddaiah and Sannaiah, but the defendant No.2 has not produced any records to establish that there was a partition between Giddaiah and Sannaiah. In the absence of material on record the defendant No.2 failed to establish that there was a partition between Giddaiah and Sannaiah. Further, the Giddamma and defendant No.2 jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.121/1984 for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.1. The said suit was dismissed against the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs have produced the

¶120

24 -

¶121

NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶122

copy of plaint in O.S.No.121/1984. The defendant No.2 has no where pleaded in the plaint that there was a partition between the defendant No.1 and Sannaiah and in the said partition item No.1 of the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of Sannaiah. The defendant No.1, 2 and Giddamma colluding with each other entered into a compromise in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property and filed a compromise petition and compromise decree was drawn.

¶123

Admittedly, the plaintiffs were not parties to the said suit and compromise decree passed in the said suit is not binding on the plaintiffs. On the basis of the said compromise decree the defendant No.2 got entered his name in the revenue record in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre. The defendant No.2 has failed to establish that prior to compromise decree the defendant No.2 had preexisting right in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 has failed to establish that there was partition

¶124

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶125

between Giddaiah and Sannaiah. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by Sanna S/o Chikka and after his death his son by name Shivaraiah had succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Shivaraiah had 5 children namely, Giddaiah, Sannaiah, Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma and after the death of Shivaraiah, his children succeeded to the suit properties. Admittedly, there is no partition amongst the children of Shivaraiah. The suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and Sannaiah, Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma. The suit schedule properties are not the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 alone.

¶126

As observed above, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of Giddaiah, Sannaiah, Chikkanna, Chikkamma and Giddamma. Though plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule properties, as I have already recorded a finding that the suit schedule

¶127

26 - NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶128

properties are the ancestral properties of legal heirs of Shivaraiah, it is well established principles of law that possession of one co-owner is possession of other coowner. No injunction can be granted against a co-owner. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question in the affirmative.

¶129

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶130

I proceed to pass the following:

¶131

ORDER

¶132

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶133

The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is modified.

¶134

It is declared that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the

¶135

27 -

¶136

NC: 2023:KHC:42394 RSA No. 1093 of 2014

¶137

plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and Giddamma.

¶138

Suit of the plaintiffs for relief of permanent injunction is dismissed.

¶139

No order as to the costs.

¶140

SD/JUDGE

¶141

RD,SKS

Basavaiah v. Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaiah v. Jayamma

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

Sri Muniraju Vs Sri Veerappa

Sri Munithimmaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Hanuman Purushothama Vs State of Karnataka

Puttaswamygowda Vs Kullegowda

G N Lakshminarayana Vs Sharadamma W/O Late G C Channappa

Smt. Ramakka Vs Smt. Kenchamma