Dismissed

K R Rangaswamaiah v. Venkataramaiah

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023RSA/987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a second appeal filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs seeking declaration of title. The Court upheld a previously confirmed decree for specific performance granted to defendant No.2 and held that Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act did not apply as the appellant could not challenge the decree after it had attained finality.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; all pending applications disposed of.

K R Rangaswamaiah Vs Venkataramaiah — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶9

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH, W/O LATE THIMMA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. SHARADAMMA, D/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH, W/O HANUMANTHAIAH,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶13

SREERANGAMURTHY, S/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, RESIDENTS OF KALLANAYAKANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶18

AND:

¶19

VENKATARAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶20

SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶21

MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶22

GOVINDAIAH @ GOVINDARAJ, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KALLANAYAKANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.

¶24

SMT. GANGAMMA, D/O LATE RANGAIAH, W/O LATE GANGABYRAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶25

T.G. NANJABYRAIAH, S/O LATE GANGABYRAIAH, AGED BOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDIGN AT NO. 131, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CORSS, NEAR OLD CHECK POST OFFICE, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 052.

¶26

SMT. LAKKAMMA, W/O LATE RANGAIAH,

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶28

SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶29

THIMMEGOWDA. R, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, II MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABIDRAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶30

KRISHNAIAH R, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶31

SURESH. R, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF KULUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.

¶32

SMT. BYRAMMA, D/O LATE RANGAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶33

C. GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 120, 9TH 'A' CROSS, II MAIN, KAVERIPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶34

C. DEVARAJU, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 59, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶37

OLD GOPI SCHOOL ROAD, IV MAIN, MEENAKSHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶38

C. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, SUJAYA NILAYA, PIPE LINE ROAD, BYADARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. ADARSH K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶41

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2023 PASSED IN RA NO. 123/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.749/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA.

¶42

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

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, wherein plaintiffs suit filed in O.S.No.749/2009 seeking a declaration that on account of

¶45

death of one Akkayyamma, they being the brothers and

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶47

sisters of Akkayyamma, have succeeded to the estate is dismissed by both the Courts.

¶48

For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties

¶49

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶50

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶51

The present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration of title and an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession. Plaintiff No.1-K.R.Rangaswamaiah and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and one Akkayyamma are brothers and sisters. The plaintiffs contended that one Rangaiah is the propositus. The said Akkayyamma was given in marriage to defendant No.1. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1 deserted Akkayyamma and therefore she was compelled to return to her parental home and she was residing with her father, Rangaiah. Plaintiffs further alleged that the suit schedule

¶52

property was allotted to the said Akkayyamma under a settlement deed executed by her father, Rangaiah. Plaintiff

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶54

further contended that Akkayyamma and Rangaiah lived together and were in possession of all the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs further case is that since Akkayyamma had no issue, on account of death of Rangaiah, she started residing with plaintiff No.1 till her death. Alleging that Akkayyamma has died interstate, the present suit is filed seeking declaration of title and for injunction.

¶55

Defendant No.1, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the claim made by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1, however, claimed that under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act'), he, being the husband of Akkayyamma, has succeeded to the suit property and is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and therefore, sought dismissal of the

¶56

suit.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶59

Defendant No.2, except admitting the relationship of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 with Akkayyamma, however, disputed the plaintiffs claim over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 claimed that Akkayyamma acquired absolute right under a registered settlement deed dated 30.09.1969. Defendant No.2 further contended that Akkayyamma, during her lifetime, offered to sell the suit property and accordingly executed an agreement on 31.12.1992 for a sale consideration of `75,000/- and defendant No.1 is a consenting party to the said agreement. Defendant No.2 further contended that since Akkayyamma and defendant No.1 failed to complete the transaction, he was compelled to file a suit for specific performance in O.S.NO.118/1993. Defendant No.2 claimed that the suit was decreed on 04.08.1993. Based on the decree passed in suit for specific performance in O.S.No.118/1993, defendant No.2 filed an execution petition and secured a sale deed and therefore claimed that he is the absolute owner and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶61

6. Plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their

¶62

respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶63

The Trial Court having taken cognizance of the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. While answering issue No.1 in the negative, the Trial Court has exhaustively dealt with the evidence let in by both the parties. While examining the evidence let in by both the parties, the Trail Court was of the view that the father of plaintiffs, Rangaiah, who is the owner of the property, settled the family property in terms of a settlement deed way back in 1969. The Trial Court further found that plaintiff No.1 in fact challenged the settlement deed in O.S.No.122/1970. The said suit ended in dismissal and was confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.15/1991. The Trial Court also found that two suits were filed against Akkayyamma during her lifetime by P.W.1, who is none other than the son of plaintiff No.1. P.W.1 instituted a suit in O.S.No.67/1993, seeking an

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶65

injunction against these defendants. The said suit is dismissed. The Trial Court also found that P.W.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.171/1993, alleging that Akkayyamma had executed an agreement in his favour on 12.12.1992. The Trial Court found that the suit for specific performance filed by P.W.1 was dismissed and confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2009. The Trial Court has also taken cognizance of the criminal case launched against P.W.1 in C.C.No.245/1980. The Trial Court held that P.W.1 was prosecuted for having abducted Akkayyamma, and he was convicted in C.C.No.245/1980.

¶66

Referring to all the significant details, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the suit by holding that defendant No.2 has acquired a valid right under a decree for specific performance.

¶67

Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, having independently assessed the entire evidence on record,

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶70

dismissed the appeal. These concurrent judgments are under challenge.

¶71

Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶72

On examining the records, this Court would find that the case on hand has a checkered history. Though Akkayyamma was allotted the present suit schedule property under settlement deed by her father, which is dated 30.09.1969, the plaintiffs have used all possible means to deny the title of Akkayyamma acquired under the registered settlement deed dated 30.09.1969. Plaintiff No.1 questioned the settlement deed executed by his father, wherein the suit schedule property came to be allotted to the share of Akkayyamma. The suit filed in O.S.No.122/1970, which was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.27/1980 questioning the settlement deed, was dismissed and confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.15/1991.

¶73

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶74

The plaintiffs do not stop here. P.W.1, who is the son of plaintiff No.1, alleging that Akkayyamma, during her lifetime, executed an agreement on 12.12.1992, filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.171/1993. The material on record clearly demonstrates that this agreement set up by P.W.1 was not only a concocted document, but it was secured by undue influence and coercion. Records also indicate that P.W.1 was convicted in C.C.No.245/1980.

¶75

If these significant details are looked into, then the question that requires consideration is as to whether plaintiffs can assert title by taking benefit of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act. On examining the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Section 15(2)(a) of the Act has no application to the present case on hand. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that the decree for specific performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993 in favour of defendant No.2 is a collusive decree and it would not

¶76

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶77

bind on plaintiffs cannot be exceeded too. The question as to whether it is a collusive decree and the question as to whether the agreement to sell dated 31.12.1992, in favour of defendant No.2 is a concocted agreement cannot be gone into in view of the decree for specific performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993. If the decree for specific performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993 in favour of defendant No.2 has gone unchallenged, the plaintiffs cannot have recourse to Section 15(2)(a) of the Act and claim ownership over the suit schedule property. Had Akkayyamma died interstate, the plaintiffs would have acquired rights under Section 15(2)(a) at the exclusion of defendant No.1/husband. But the records clearly reveal that Akkayyamma, during her lifetime, executed an agreement in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 by instituting a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.118/1993, has succeeded in proving the due execution of the agreement. The decree for specific performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993 is enforced by defendant No.2 by filing Ex.P.No.56/2005. If the decree

¶78

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶79

passed in O.S.No.118/1993 has attained finality, the plaintiffs have no locus to institute the present suit and cannot seek benefit under Section 15(2)(a). If Akkayyamma, who is the absolute owner, has meddled with the property by executing an agreement to sell, and if an competent civil court has granted a decree for specific performance, plaintiffs could not have maintained the present suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction.

¶80

The rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2 further clearly establishes that it is defendant No.2, who is found to be in lawful possession. Even on this count, the present suit is not maintainable. Both the Courts have exhaustively dealt with the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2. Plaintiffs who have fought litigation during the lifetime of Akkayyamma and have gone to the extent of questioning the right and title of Akkayyamma based on settlement deed have continued their relentless efforts in trying to retrieve the property. Therefore, I am more than

¶81

14 -

¶82

NC: 2023:KHC:45097 RSA No. 987 of 2023

¶83

satisfied that the present suit is a frivolous suit and an attempt is made to deny the decree secured by defendant No.2 in a suit for specific performance. Under the garb of seeking a declaration, the plaintiff cannot nullify a decree passed in specific performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993. Therefore, no substantial question of

¶84

law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶85

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

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

HDK

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK

K R Rangaswamaiah v. Venkataramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K R Rangaswamaiah v. Venkataramaiah

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

H v Padmanaba Gowda Vs Muniyamma

Sri Alwyn Jayakar Menon Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Savithramma Vs Sri. Putta

Smt. Sarojamma Vs Smt Suvarnamma

M S Kenchegowda Vs M S Subbegowda

The Trinity Industrial Institute Shanthinagara (Ragigudda) Vs the Directorate General