Dismissed

Ananda v. Srinivasa @ Vasudeva

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023RSA/1313/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the second appeal filed by an appellant challenging concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for partition. The appellant claimed suit properties as joint family assets purchased by his grandmother, but the court held they were her self-acquired properties sold during her lifetime.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal is dismissed; all pending applications are disposed of.

Ananda Vs Srinivasa @ Vasudeva — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1313 OF 2020 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANANDA, S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A: BOVI PLAYA, (ANTHARASANAHALLY), ARAKERE POST, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 106.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR H.B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRINIVASA @ VASUDEVA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A BOVI PALYA, (ANTHARASANAHALLY), ARAKERE POST, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 106.

¶14

MAHANTHESH, S/O LATE PEDDABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A MADAKANAHALLY, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 139.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶17

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION, OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B NO. 3/2, 3^RD FLOOR, THIMMAIAH TOWER, 1^ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALAURU-560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI M.D RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2020 PASSED IN RA NO.176/2020 (OLD NO.35/2019) ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.483/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT TUMKUR.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession is dismissed by both the Courts below.

¶24

For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties

¶25

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶27

The family tree of the plaintiff and the

¶28

defendants No. 1 and 2 is as below:

¶29

Ramaiah (Dead)

¶30

Shivamma (Wife Defendant No.1)

¶31

Srinivasa @ Vasudeva Ananda (Defendant No.2) (Plaintiff)

¶32

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶33

Plaintiff has filed the present suit by alleging that the suit properties are the joint family properties and that he is entitled for his legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Chikkayellamma is his grandmother. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that suit schedule properties are purchased in the name of his grandmother out of joint family funds. Therefore, plaintiff claims that these properties though purchased in the name of his grandmother, same are his joint family ancestral properties. It is further alleged that his grandmother taking undue advantage of illiteracy of his

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶35

father Ramaiah has sold item No.'A' property in favour of one Jayamma and therefore claim that sale by his grandmother insofar as item No.'A' is concerned is not binding on his legitimate share. It is further alleged that said Jayamma has sold Item 'A' property in favour of third defendant.

¶36

Plaintiff also alleges that after demise of Chikkayellamma, his father Ramaiah and his uncle Bheemaiah have sold item No.'B' property in favour of third defendant under registered sale deed dated 30-03-1994. Plaintiff claims that he is not a party to the said transaction. Hence, the present suit is filed alleging that third defendant in collusion with defendant No.4 is attempting to dispossess plaintiff from joint possession over the suit schedule properties along with defendants No. 1 and 2.

¶37

Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶39

The trial Court, having examined the oral and

¶40

documentary evidence let in by both the parties, has answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative. The trial Court has further answered issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 framed on 2-1-2015 in the affirmative. The trial Court, while recording its finding on all the issues has held that plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties.

¶41

While taking cognizance of rebuttal evidence let in by third defendant/purchaser, the trial Court declined to accept the contention of the plaintiff that suit schedule properties though purchased in the name of his grandmother, same are joint family properties. On the contrary, the trial Court held that the properties acquired by the hindu female are presumed to be her self acquired properties, unless contrary is proved and consequently, suit is dismissed.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶43

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree

¶44

of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the

¶45

lower Appellate Court in RA No.176/2020. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record held that the suit schedule 'A' property was sold by Chikkayellamma and plaintiff's uncle Bheemaiah in favour of one Jayamma under the registered sale deed dated 2-6-1969. The said Jayamma in turn has sold schedule 'A' property to the third defendant under the registered sale deed dated 9-4-1993. The Appellate Court, referring to these sale transactions held that Chikkayellamma being absolute owner of the schedule 'A' property had a saleable title and therefore, third defendant having purchased the property from Jayamma has become absolute owner of schedule 'A' property.

¶46

While examining the plaintiff's right over the schedule 'B' property, the Appellate Court held that after the death of plaintiff's grandmother Chikkayellamma, his father and uncle inherited the schedule 'B' property and

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶48

they have sold schedule 'B' property infavour of third defendant under the registered sale deed dated 30-03-1994. Referring to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate Court held that on the death of hindu female, the properties devolve upon sons of hindu female and plaintiff being grandson has no right over the properties left behind by his grandmother and consequently, appeal is dismissed. These concurrent judgments are under challenge.

¶49

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

¶50

Both the Courts referring to the evidence on record have come to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties were admittedly owned by Chikkayellama who is the grandmother of plaintiff herein. It is also borne out from record that Chikkayellamma during her lifetime sold schedule 'A' property in favour of one Jayamma under the

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶52

registered sale deed dated 2-6-1969. Jayamma in turn sold schedule 'A' property in favour of third defendant under the registered sale deed dated 9-4-1993. Therefore, it is clearly evident that schedule 'A' property was lost way back in 1969.

¶53

Insofar as schedule 'B' property is concerned, the said property is admittedly, the self acquired property of Chikkayellamma. Both the Courts have concurrently held that schedule 'B' property was self acquired property of Chikkayellamma. As per Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, after demise of Chikkayellamma, it is only her sons who would inherit the properties. The material on record clearly reveals that after demise of Chikakyellamma, her both sons namely Ramaiah and Bheemaiah have sold schedule 'B' property in favour third respondent under the registered sale deed dated 30-03-1994.

¶54

If these significant details are looked into, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case that he constitutes undivided joint hindu family

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶57

and that suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Property held by hindu female cannot assume the character of an ancestral property. It is also borne out from record that Chikkayellamma during her life time has sold schedule 'A' property. It is also borne out from record that after the death of Chikkayellamma, her sons having inherited schedule 'A' property have also meddled with the property and have sold schedule 'B' property in favour of third defendant.

¶58

In the light of the discussions made supra, this Court is of the view that the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. I do not find any infirmity in the reasons and conclusions recorded by both the Courts below. As no substantial question of law would arise for consideration second appeal fails. Accordingly, the regular second appeal

¶59

is dismissed .

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:39192 RSA No. 1313 of 2020

¶62

In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Ananda v. Srinivasa @ Vasudeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda v. Srinivasa @ Vasudeva

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

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Vinod Kumar

M/S Mosaic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt Sadaram D Nayak

Sri Sanath Kumar Padival Vs Smt Vijayamma

Jayaramegowda Vs Madegowda

Muralidhar Vs a R Ramesh

Smt. Hanumamma Vs Sri. Thirumalaiah @ Sanna Pujari Thirumalaiah