Dismissed

Sri D C Basavaraju v. Sri Basappa

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023RSA/2114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit. It held that evidence proved a 1959 family partition followed by an exchange of properties, with the appellant's father admitting the alienated property originated from a partition. No substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed on merits as well as on delay. Pending interlocutory application disposed of.

Sri D C Basavaraju Vs Sri Basappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2114 OF 2023 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI D C BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶8

SMT BAVARAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DODDERI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-562 122.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA B N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI BASAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶15

SMT PARVATHAMMA

¶16

1A. W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶17

1B. SMT MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶19

1C. SRI NEELAKANTAIAH S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶20

1D. SRI RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶21

1E. SRI VEERABADRAIAH S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶22

THE RESPONDENT 1A TO 1E ARE R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI

¶23

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-562122

¶24

1F. SMT BAGYAMMA

¶25

W/O RAVANASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKANNAHALLI POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶26

1G. SMT SUVARNA

¶27

D/O LATE BASAPPA, W/O MAHALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT LANKANADODDI VILLAGE, MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK/ DISTRICT.

¶28

1H. SMT AKKAMAHADEVI D/O LATE BASAPPA, W/O SIDDARAJU,

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶30

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT VERREGOWDADODDI VILLAGE, MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK.

¶31

1I. SMT SIDDAVEERAMMA D/O LATE BASAPPA, W/O B M SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT HITTUMADU VILLAGE AT POST, BIDADI HOBLI, BIDADI POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK.

¶32

SRI M SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶33

SMT NAGARATHNAMMA,

¶34

2A. W/O LATE M SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶35

2B. SMT GIRIJAMMA D/O LATE M SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶36

2C. SRI GIRISHA S/O LATE M SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶37

2D. SMT SHYLAJA D/O LATE M SADASHIVAIAH, W/O HARISHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶38

THE RESPONDENT D2(A) TO D2(D) ARE R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶40

SRI MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶41

SRI M CHANNAMALLAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH @ PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶42

SRI KANTHARAJU D/O LATE MALLAIAH @ PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶43

THE RESPONDENT 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶44

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51/2, JALAMANGALA ROAD, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, RAMANAGARA

¶45

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.33/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.79/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein plaintiffs’ suit for partition and separate possession is dismissed by both the Courts.

¶51

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs on merits as well as on delay.

¶52

Though delay is found to be negligible, on examining the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence.

¶53

The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession by contending that suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. The defendants, on the contrary, have contested the suit by specifically contending that there was exchange of properties by the plaintiff No.1 and his father with the husband of defendant No.4 through exchange deed dated 08.05.1994.

¶54

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶55

5. The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate

¶56

their respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence. The defendants to substantiate that there is a partition in the family and that parties have exchanged the properties, produced copy of exchange deed and also produced a copy of sale deed executed by plaintiffs’ father vide Ex.D-1.

¶57

The trial Court referring to these rebuttal

¶58

evidence found that there is severance in the family in 1959 and the properties which were allotted to the respective branches in 1959 were exchanged between father of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and husband of defendant No.4. The trial Court referring to these clinching rebuttal evidence dismissed the partition suit on two grounds. Firstly, the trial Court found that there is already partition in 1959 and the respective branches who were allotted specific properties in the family partition have exchanged the properties by way of exchange deed. Consequently, suit is dismissed.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶61

The appellate Court on reassessing the entire

¶62

evidence on record has also taken cognizance of Exs.D-1 and D-2. Referring to these documents, appellate Court was also of the view that there is partition in the family on 20.03.1959. The appellate Court also held that properties have been exchanged between the parties and plaintiffs father having acquired right and title pursuant to exchange deed asserting absolute title has sold Sy.No.82 measuring 7½ guntas with specific boundaries and there is a recital in Ex.D-1, wherein father of plaintiff No.1 has clearly stated that the property that he has alienated under Ex.D-1 is allotted to him in a partition. Referring to these significant details, appellate Court was also not inclined to grant any indulgence. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

¶63

On examining the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I am of the view that no purpose will be served if notice is ordered on the ground of there being delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The concurrent findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts is

¶64

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45665 RSA No. 2114 of 2023

¶65

based on clinching rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants. If there is already severance in 1959 and the families have further exchanged properties and have further asserting absolute right have dealt with the properties and while doing so, plaintiffs father has admitted that the property which he has sold under Ex.D-1 is allotted to him in a family partition, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶66

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on delay.

¶67

The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri D C Basavaraju v. Sri Basappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D C Basavaraju v. Sri Basappa

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

B K Srinath Vs Nithin Kumar

T M Abdul Gani Vs Late C Venkataraju S/O Late Channappa Since Deceased by His Lrs S L Geetha

Smt. Sarojamma Vs Smt Suvarnamma

Smt. Anjinamma, Vs Sri. Mohammed Sajjad Sait

Sri. N. S. Srinivas Vs Sri. N. D. Surendra

Azeez Mohammed Vs Mr. Parameshwaran Subramani