High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging a decree holding their suit barred by limitation and rejecting their claim to declaration of title and possession over ancestral properties.
Second Appeal dismissed; pending applications dismissed; concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.8 OF 2019 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS ARE ALREADY
ON RECORD AS APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
POST BELAVADI-577 146 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N, ADVOCATE FOR A.2 AND A.3;
A.2 AND A.3 ARE LRS OF DECEASED A.1)
AND:
W/O LATE SIDDALINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O NARASIPURA VILLAGE LAKYA HOBLI
POST BELAVADI-577 146
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
R/O NARASIPURA VILLAGE LAKYA HOBLI POST BELAVADI - 577 146 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
R/O NARASIPURA VILLAGE LAKYA HOBLI POST BELAVADI-577146 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
W/O MANJEGOWDA & D/O LATE SIDDALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NARASIPURA VILLAGE LAKYA HOBLI
POST BELAVADI-577146 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
PIN-577 146
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.335/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKMAGALUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court wherein the plaintiffs suit seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiffs
are not bound by the sale deeds dated 07.07.1994 and 07.12.1995 and for the relief of possession of the suit schedule properties from the defendants is rejected by both the Courts.
they are ranked before the Trial Court.
Plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule properties
are joint family ancestral properties. It is contended that 1st plaintiff's father Subbegowda had a brother by name Venkategowda, who died leaving behind two wives. 1st plaintiff claims to be son of Subbegowda. It is also contended that plaintiff No.1 had a brother by name Chennegowda and plaintiff No.4 is the widow and plaintiff Nos.5 and 6 are the children of his brother Chennegowda.
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
disputing the sale deed dated 07.12.1995, which pertains to item No.2 bearing Sy. No.38/1 measuring 25 guntas. Plaintiff No.1 alleges that this sale deed is executed by playing fraud and impersonation. Plaintiff No.1 had never gone to the Sub-Registrar Office to execute the sale deed. The present suit is filed alleging that the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiffs in the month of July, 2011 and therefore, the present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration that the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff and for possession.
and have stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants on the contrary claimed that their ancestors Siddalinge Gowda, who is the husband of defendant No.1, has purchased the suit lands under the registered sale deeds dated 07.07.1994 and 07.12.1995 for valuable sale consideration. Plaintiff No.1 and his Aunt Siddamma having received the sale consideration have delivered the possession on the date of execution of the
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
sale deed. Therefore, the defendants by claiming to be owners have claimed exclusive possession over the suit lands. Defendant Nos.5 to 7 have claimed that Nageshgowda @ Nagegowda who is the husband of defendant No.5 has purchased item No.2 under registered sale deed dated 07.12.1995 from Siddamma.
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
Court. Assailing the concurrent judgments of the both
Courts, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
and learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Perused the judgments under challenge.
to filing of the suit. It is forthcoming from the records that there is no dispute that there is already severance in the
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
family of late Subbegowda, who is the father of 1st plaintiff and one Venkategowda, who is the husband of Siddamma. The plaintiffs strangely have not placed on record any evidence to substantiate that Sy. No.38/3 measuring 25 guntas is allotted to their share. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs have admitted in unequivocal
terms that there is already severance between the plaintiffs branch and husband of Siddamma i.e., Venkategowda. If severance is admitted, the burden was on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that Sy. No.38/3 measuring 25 guntas was allotted to their branch.
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
the part of the plaintiffs to substantiate and establish that item No.1 - Sy. No.38/3 measuring 25 guntas is owned by them. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate their claim. Insofar as item No.2 i.e., the land bearing Sy. No.38/1 is concerned, plaintiff No.1 and his paternal Aunt Siddamma have sold item No.2 in favour of husband of defendant No.5 under registered sale deed dated 07.12.1995. If plaintiff No.1 is a party to the sale deed and he is an executant, plaintiff No.1 ought to have claimed cancellation of the document pertaining to item No.2 property. Though theory of concoction is narrated in the plaint insofar as item No.2 is concerned, the plaintiffs have virtually abandoned the theory of concoction during trial. There is not even a suggestion to the defendants in regard to alleged impersonation pertaining to item No.2 transaction. What can be inferred is that during trial, the plaintiffs have given up theory of concoction and no evidence is let in to substantiate their pleadings relating to impersonation.
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
NC: 2023:KHC:38195 RSA No. 8 of 2019
not bind on the plaintiffs, if plaintiff No.1 is an executant insofar as item No.2 is concerned. Even on this count also, the appeal is bound to fail.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale transactions within a week of execution.
Whether the plaintiffs discharged their burden of proving that the specific land in question was allotted to their branch after severance.
SRI HULIGOWDA S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS
SMT RAMAMMA W/O LATE SIDDALINGE GOWDA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
