A regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC filed by the 7th defendant challenging a partition decree granting a 1/7th share. The High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, finding no merit and no substantial question of law arising.
The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:23429 RSA No. 786 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.786 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.B.JAYARAMU, S/O BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SHIVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARENDRA.D.V.GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:23429 RSA No. 786 of 2018
RESPONDENT 2 TO 6 ARE R/AT SHIVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., SEEKING CERTAIN RELEIFS.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:23429 RSA No. 786 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Sri.R.S.Ravi., learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Narendra D.V.Gowda., for appellant has appeared in person.
& Sessions Judge, Mandya.
The appellant being the 7th defendant, contested the suit and filed written statement. He contended that the second defendant being the Kartha and Manager of the family, with the consent of first defendant and other coparceners alienated Item No.1 of the suit schedule property in his favor for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only). He also contended that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the revenue records are standing in his name. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share in all the suit schedule properties and it was also ordered that the second defendant shall render accounts to the plaintiff and there shall be a separate enquiry for mesne profit as contemplated under the law. Aggrieved by the Judgment & Decree of the Trial Court, the 7th defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No.266/2010 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. The First Appellate Court on the 12th day of October 2017 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment & Decree of the Trial Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused Judgments & Decrees of the Trial Court & the First Appellate Court with utmost care.
The principle ground on which this Court is asked to admit the appeal and frame the question of law is that both the Courts erred in granting 1/7th share to the plaintiff in first item
of the suit schedule property. Further, the appellant is the bonafide purchaser for value. Hence, the grant of share in first item of the suit schedule property is wholly untenable in law.
I have considered the submission made on behalf of appellant.
NC: 2023:KHC:23429 RSA No. 786 of 2018
work out his remedy in the Final Decree Proceedings.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal should be admitted to challenge the grant of 1/7th share to the plaintiff in the partition suit.
Whether the appellant qualifies as a bonafide purchaser to invalidate the share grant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. S.B.Jayaramu
Sri B.Jagadisha
Sri Boraiah
Sri B.S.Thamanna
Sri S.B. Shivaramu
Sri B.B.Satisha
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
