Dismissed

Sri Sonnegowda M v. Sri Muniswamigowda

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023RSA/239/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal filed by an unsuccessful plaintiff. The plaintiff sought declaration of title over an ancestral property but failed because a registered gift deed in his ancestors' favor in 1952, executed to the respondent, remained unchallenged and crystallized the title. The court held no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal, pending applications, and the impugned judgments and decrees were dismissed.

Sri Sonnegowda M Vs Sri Muniswamigowda — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.239 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SONNEGOWDA M S/O MUNINARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NALLAPALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563135

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR B N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.MUNISWAMIGOWDA S/O (L) MUNIVENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O VALLABAI ROAD NEAR MULBAGAL CIRCLE THOLGATE, SRINIVASAPUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT - 563135

¶14

SMT.BYRAMMA

¶15

D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O MUDAYANURU VILLAGE DUGGASABDRA HOBLI

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶17

MULBAGAL TALUK

¶18

KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131

¶19

SMT.NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O YADARURU VILLAGE YELDUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPUR TALUK - 563 135

¶20

SMT.NEELAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION SRINIVASAPUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.UMESH B.N, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.4)

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2015 PASSED IN RA.NO.117/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.31/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), & CJM, KOLAR AND ETC.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the concurrent judgments of the both Courts, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction is dismissed by both the Courts.

¶28

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as

¶29

they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶30

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶31

The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking relief of declaration. The plaintiff asserts that the suit land is the ancestral property, which originally belonged to one Gulunarayanappa and his brother Venkateshappa. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that Venkateshappa is his grand father. His grandfather along with his brother have inherited the property from their father and therefore,

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶33

contended that the suit land is an ancestral property and therefore, disputed the defendants right and title over the property in question. The plaintiff has also alleged that the property is illegally mutated in the name of one Munivenkatamma without any basis. Alleging that the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction.

¶34

On receipt of summons, the defendants tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants on the contrary claimed that the plaintiff's ancestor namely Gulunarayanappa along with plaintiff's grandfather namely Venkateshappa and his son namely Muninarayanagowda, who is the father of the plaintiff herein, have gifted the suit property in favour of Munivenkatamma under the Gift Deed dated 13.09.1952. Therefore, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶36

pursuant to the gift deed executed by his ancestors has no semblance of right and title and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶37

The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their

¶38

respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶39

The Trial Court having examined the pleadings of the parties and the registered Gift Deed, which is produced by both the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative. The Court of first instance having taken cognizance of the registered Gift Deed in favour of the defendants ancestor namely Munivenkatamma recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his right and title over the suit property in question. While answering issue No.2 in the negative and against the plaintiff, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court. The

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶42

unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court assailing the concurrent judgments of both the Courts.

¶43

Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff

¶44

and learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts.

¶45

The plaintiff has not questioned the registered Gift Deed executed by his grandfather and Gulunarayanappa. The registered Gift Deed is dated 13.09.1952. Though the plaintiff has placed on record the registered Gift Deed, which is marked as Ex.P.1, the plaintiff has not questioned the registered Gift Deed. If plaintiff's ancestors have gifted the property to one Munivenkatamma, the plaintiff has no locus to seek relief of declaration. This Court has also to bear in mind the Gift Deed is of the year 1952 and the suit is filed in the year 2010. If the registered Gift Deed executed by the plaintiff's grandfather - Gulunarayanappa, who was admittedly a joint owner, has gone unchallenged, I am of

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:38835 RSA No. 239 of 2016

¶47

the view that the both Courts were justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. If registered Gift Deed executed by the plaintiff's ancestors to which the plaintiff's father is also a consenting witness, both Courts were justified in dismissing the suit. If property is conveyed in favour of Munivenkatamma in the year 1952, the rights of Munivenkatamma under the valid registered Gift Deed has stood crystallized. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institute a suit in the year 2010.

¶48

No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶49

Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

NBM

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Sonnegowda M v. Sri Muniswamigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sonnegowda M v. Sri Muniswamigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddananjaiah Vs D K Ramaiah

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs Sri Paramesh

Chowdareddy Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri Venkatareddy

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Vinod Kumar

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

Sri Sanath Kumar Padival Vs Smt Vijayamma