Jagadish Krishnarao Kulkarni v. Smt. Sarojini W/O Vitthal Ankalekar

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024RFA/100376/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected two appeals against a first appeal decreeing partition of ancestral property. The bench held that the original suit was restored unconditionally and the pendente lite purchaser's claim was valid, rejecting arguments based on the transferor's failure to prosecute. The appeals stand rejected.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed by the legal representatives of the original defendants are rejected, and the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2018 in O.S. No. 19/2010 are allowed as amended to include the purchaser

Jagadish Krishnarao Kulkarni Vs Smt. Sarojini… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100376 OF 2018 (PAR/POS-)

¶8

C/W

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100377 OF 2018

¶10

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

IN RFA NO. 100376/2018 BETWEEN:

¶12

JAGADISH KRISHNARAO KULKARNI

¶13

SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS.

¶14

SMT. JYOTI W/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI,

¶15

DHARWAD-580007.

¶16

SUCHETA D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE. 44 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580007.

¶17

MINU D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE.41 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶18

DEEPA D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE.40 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS

¶19

2 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶20

R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI

¶21

DHARWAD-580007.

¶22

SHARMILA D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE.38 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580007.

¶23

SUDESH SHENOY AGE.47 YEARS OCC. SERVICE, R/O 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580007.

¶24

SUMEET S/O. SUDESH SHENOY AGE.21 YEARS OCC. STUDENT, R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580007.

¶25

SARVESH S/O. SUDESH SHENOY AGE.19 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580007.

¶26

…APPELLANTS

¶27

(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SMT. SAROJINI W/O. VITTHAL ANKALEKAR SINCE DEAD BY HER LR

¶30

SMT. LATA D/O. VITTHAL ANKALEKAR AGE.49 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. ANDARSHA NAGAR, WARLI COLONY, MUMBAI-400 030.

¶31

NIRMALA BALACHANDRA BASRUR

¶32

3 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶33

AGE.78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. 25/394, SIDDHARTH NAGAR, S.B. ROAD, GOREGAON WEST, WEST MUMBAI-400 062.

¶34

MANGALA W/O. MANGESH SHARMA AGE.75 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. MANJARI APARTMENT, 36/7, PANDURANG COLONY, PUNE-411 038.

¶35

VIJAYA W/O. SADANAND NAYAK AGE.65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. 311, 59TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK BHASYAM CIRCLE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALURU-560 010.

¶36

PADMINI W/O. DINKAR KULKARNI AGE.86 YEARS OCC.HOUSEHOLD R/O. FLAT NO. 3/5/2, TALIMAKIWADI, JAVAJI DADAJI MARG, GRAND ROAD

¶37

MUMBAI-400 007.

¶38

DIED ON 26/04/2010 (LR’S OF RESPONDENT NO 5 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NOS. 6, 7, 8 AND 9)

¶39

BHAVANISHANKAR DINKAR KULKARNI R/O: FLAT NO. 3/5/2, TALIMAKIWADI, JAVAJI DADAJI MARG, GRAND ROAD,

¶40

MUMBAI-400 007.

¶41

DIED ON 27/02/2010 (RESPONDENT NO. 6 DIED A BACHELOR)

¶42

4 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶43

ANURADHA W/O. ASHOK KULKARNI AGE.58 YEARS OCC. PRIVATE R/O. 11/3, SARASWAT COLONY SANACRUZ, WEST MUMBAI-400 054.

¶44

VIDYA W/O. HARISH BHUTA AGE.61 YEARS OCC.HOUSEHOLD R/O. AJIT NAGAR, S.V. ROAD MALAD, WEST MUMBAI-400 064.

¶45

LATA @ ASHA W/O. RAVINDRA UBHAYKAR AGE.58 YEARS OCC. HOSUEHOLD WORK R/O. 31/1, SHRIRAMPUR, 6TH CROSS, BANGALURU-560021.

¶46

SUVARNA W/O. ANAND MAVINKURVE AGE.47 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O H.NO.47, SHRIHARI, SHIVAPUR COLONY, NEAR CHAVAN GARDEN, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶47

(PLAINTIFF NO. 10 IS REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS NO.1 TO 9 AS THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER)

¶48

MUKESH S/O. HARAJIVANADAS PATADIYA AGE.49 YEARS OCC.BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE R/O. ADARSH NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580032.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL AND SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOACATES FOR R11;

¶51

5 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶52

R1 TO R3, R7 TO R9 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R5 AND R6- APPEAL STANDS ABATED; R10-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶53

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.05.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶54

IN RFA NO. 100377/2018

¶55

BETWEEN:

¶56

JAGADISH KRISHNARAO KULKARNI SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS.

¶57

SMT. JYOTI W/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶58

SUCHETA D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE. 48 YEARS. OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶59

MINU D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE.45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007

¶60

DEEPA D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE.44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶61

- 6 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶62

SHARMILA D/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI AGE.42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶63

SUDESH SHENOY AGE.50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI

¶64

DHARWAD-580007.

¶65

SUMEET S/O SUDESH SHENOY AGE.25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶66

SARVESH S/O. SURESH SHENOY AGE.23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS R/O. 4TH CROSS, SADHANAKERI DHARWAD-580007.

¶67

…APPELLANTS

¶68

(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶69

AND:

¶70

SMT. SAROJINI W/O. VITTHAL ANKALEKAR SINCE DEAD, BY HER LR

¶71

SMT. LATA D/O. VITTHAL ANKALEKAR AGE.57 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. ANDARSHA NAGAR OPP. OLD PASSPORT OFFICE WORLI COLONY, MUMBAI-400 030.

¶72

NIRMALA BALACHANDRA BASARUR AGE.87 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: 25/394, SIDDHARTH NAGAR

¶73

7 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶74

S.B. ROAD, BOREGAOV WEST, MUMBAI-400 062.

¶75

MANGALA W/O. MANGESH SHARMA AGE.83 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. MANJARI APARTMENT 36/7, PANDURANG COLONY PUNE-411 038.

¶76

VIJAYA W/O. SADANAND NAYAK AGE.73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. 311, 59TH CROSS 3RD BLOCK, BHASHYAM CIRCLE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALURU-560 010.

¶77

PADMINI W/O. DINKAR KULKARNI AGE.94 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD R/O. FLAT NO. 3/5/2, TALMAKIWADI JAVAJI DADAJI MARG, GRAND ROAD MUMBAI-400 007.

¶78

BHAVANISHANKAR DINKAR KULKARNI AGE.73 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE R/O: FLAT NO.3/5/2, TALMAKIWADI, JAVAJI DADAJI MARG,

¶79

GRAND ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007.

¶80

ANURADHA W/O. ASHOK KULKARNI AGE.66 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE R/O. 11/3, SARASWAT COLONY SANACRUZ, WEST MUMBAI-400 054

¶81

VIDYA W/O. HARISH BHUTA AGE.69 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD R/O. AJIT NAGAR, S.V. ROAD

¶82

8 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶83

MALAD WEST, MUMBAI-400 064.

¶84

LATA @ ASHA W/O. RAVINDRA UBHAYANKAR AGE.66 YEARS, OCC. HOSUEHOLD WORK R/O. 31/1, SHRIRAMPUR, 6TH CROSS ROAD, BANGALURU-560021.

¶85

SUVARNA W/O. ANAND MAVINKURVE AGE.55 YEARS OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O H.NO.47, SHRIHARI SHIVAPUR COLONY, NEAR CHAHAN GARDEN GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶86

(RESPONDENT NO. 10 IS REPRESENTED HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 9 AS THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER)

¶87

MUKESH S/O. HARAJIVANADAS PATADIYA AGE.57 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE R/O. ADARSH NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580032.

¶88

…RESPONDENTS

¶89

(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL AND SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATES FOR R11; R1 TO R10 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶90

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.05.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶91

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

¶92

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶93

9 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶94

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶95

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶96

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶97

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD)

¶98

These appeals are against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2018 in O.S.No.19/2010 on the file of I- Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad [for short ‘ the civil Court’ ]. The civil Court by the impugned judgment and decree has decreed the suit in the following terms:

¶99

“The suit filed by the Plaintiff No.11 is hereby decreed.

¶100

The counterclaim sought by the Defendants No.1(a) to (h) is hereby dismissed.

¶101

The Plaintiff No.11 is entitled for 10/11^th undivided share of the Plaintiffs No.1 to 10 in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

¶102

The Defendants No.1(a) to (h) are jointly entitled for 1/11^th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

¶103

The Defendants No.1(a) to (h) are hereby directed to pay required Court fee on their 1/11^th share in the suit schedule properties, in accordance with law.”

¶104

10 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶105

This Court must at outset encapsulate the

¶106

undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, and the encapsulation is thus. Sri. Nagendra Rao is the propositus, and he has died leaving behind his two sons, Sri Krishna Rao and Sri Dinakar. These sons have died respectively in the year 1974 and 1980, and Smt. Rukmini W/o Krishna Rao and Smt. Padmini W/o Dinakar have died in the year 1980 and 2010 respectively. The appellants are the legal representatives of Sri. Jagadish S/o. Sri Krishna Rao. The respondents [other than the eleventh respondent] are the daughters/granddaughter¹ of both Sri. Krishna Rao and Sri. Dinakar.

¶107

These respondents have commenced this suit in O.S.No.19/2010 against Sri Jagadish [the only son between Sri Krishna Rao and Sri Dinakar] for partition of the non-agricultural properties in CTS No.11/A, 11/B and 11/C measuring in all 14 guntas of Sadhanakeri,

¶108

1 The notice of appeal to the respondents is dispensed with vide Order dated 19.02.2024 at the instance of the counsel for appellants in RFA No.100377/2018 vide memo dated 19.02.2024.

¶109

11 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶110

Doddanayakanakoppa Dharwad [ the Subject Properties ]. The respondents have asserted 1/11^th share each in the subject properties. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents have transferred their asserted 10/11^th undivided shares in the subject properties to the eleventh respondent [hereafter referred to as ‘ the purchaser’ ] under sale deeds dated 25.01.2012 [Ex. P8 – P11].

¶111

The purchaser has filed an application

¶112

under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the CPC’] to come on record as a co-plaintiff with the other respondents. The civil Court has allowed this application on 16.08.2012. The purchaser who is thus permitted to come on record as a plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint for allotment the respondents’ 10/11^th share in the subject properties to him and for decree for partition by metes and bounds. This application is allowed on 04.01.2013, and the purchaser has carried out the amendment.

¶113

12 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶114

The civil Court has dismissed the suit for

¶115

default on 08.09.2016, but it has listed the matter for evidence on counter claim filed by Sri. Jagadish. At that stage, the purchaser has filed an application under Order IX of CPC for restoration of the suit. The learned counsel for Sri. Jagadish, after filing of objections to such application, has submitted that the application could be allowed on costs. The civil Court on 24.11.2016 has allowed this application restoring the suit in the light of this submission and observing that the application must be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.4,000/-.

¶116

The purchaser has examined himself as PW1 and produced and marked the sale deeds and revenue records of the subject properties as exhibits. Sri. Jagadish has examined himself as DW1, and as observed by the Civil Court in the course of the judgment, he has breathed his last before he could offer himself for cross-examination. The appellants are brought on record as the legal heirs, but they have not chosen to lead any evidence.

¶117

13 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶118

The civil Court, on examination of the

¶119

evidence [including records such as the revenue records] and the undisputed fact that the subject properties is ancestral properties, has observed that the respondents are undeniably entitled to 1/11^th share each [ to 10/11^th share together ] in the subject properties, and as regards the purchaser’s right, the civil Court has opined that he has acquired the respondents’ interest under the sale deeds executed by them in his favour,. The civil Court has rejected the counterclaim essentially on the ground that the appellants have not examined themselves and they cannot rely upon the evidence of Sri. Jagadish because he has not tendered himself for cross-examination. The civil Court has also opined that the appellants cannot assert any right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [for short ‘the HS Act ’] as the purchaser is not related to them.

¶120

Sri. V. M. Sheelavant, the learned counsel for the appellants, while not disputing that the appellants

¶121

14 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶122

have not let in evidence to justify the claim for right of preemption under Section 22 of the HS Act, submits that the civil Court should have dismissed the suit even as against the purchaser because of the following.

¶123

8.1 The suit by the respondents for declaration of their 1/11^th share for each in the schedule properties is dismissed on 08.09.2016 with the order of dismissal of the suit for default. The suit is restored, but only at the purchaser’s instance which essentially means that the suit by the respondents is dismissed. The purchaser can assert a right in the subject properties only if the respondents claim to 1/11^th share in the subject properties is declared,

¶124

and with the respondents’ suit being dismissed, the purchaser does not have any legs to stand on his own and seek respondents’ share.

¶125

8.2 The purchaser is a pendente lite purchaser

¶126

and his right to the respondents’ share under the sale deeds is dependent on the declaration of the respondents’ shares at their instance. The civil Court has expressly observed

¶127

15 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶128

that the suit as against the respondents is dismissed without declaring the respondents’ share in the subject properties. The respondents’ share is thus not adjudicated, and in that event, there cannot be a decree for partition in favour of the purchaser.

¶129

8.3 Sri. V. M. Sheelavant, amongst other decisions, proposes to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sri. T. G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal and another² to buttress his case that a pendente lite purchaser can only assert such right as is ultimately decided in the suit in favour of the transferor and that if the transferor’s rights are not so decided, the pendente lite transferee will not take any interest.

¶130

Sri. Mrityunjaya Tata Bangi, the learned counsel

¶131

for the purchaser supported by Smt. Sharmila Patil, canvases as follows.

¶132

Firstly, the purchaser upon coming on record as a coplaintiff has sought for amendment of the plaint for

¶133

2 (2010) 14 SCC 370

¶134

16 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶135

declaration of his right to the respondents’ undivided 10/11^th share in the subject properties and for partition thereof by metes and bounds. As such, the purchaser is entitled to prosecute the suit on his own for appropriate decree in this regard, which is granted by the civil Court.

¶136

Secondly, the purchaser is permitted to implead himself as a co-plaintiff in the light of his specific contention that he has “ stepped into the shoes ” of the respondents with the execution of the subject sale deeds on 25.01.2012. Though the order in this regard is on an application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the order must necessarily be construed as an order on application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, which contemplates an assignee coming on record.

¶137

Thirdly, the appellants cannot contend that the respondents’ cause of action is dismissed and therefore the purchaser will not have any cause of action, because in the case of a pendente lite purchaser, the cause of action available to the transferor is not wiped out entirely unless

¶138

17 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶139

the transaction by its very nature wipes out the cause of action. In this regard, the reliance is upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hukam Chand v. Om Chand and others³ .

¶140

Lastly, that the suit though dismissed for default on 08.09.2016 is restored in its entirety on 24.11.2016 and this restoration is not qua the purchaser alone and is with the consent of the appellants. The appellants, even otherwise, have not challenged the order dated 24.11.2016.

¶141

In the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions, the points for consideration in this appeal is:

¶142

Whether the appellants must succeed in the appeal either on the ground that the purchaser could not have been granted 10/11^th share in the subject properties because the suit by the respondents is dismissed for default or on the ground that the purchaser, as a pendente lite purchaser, cannot claim the respondents’ share in

¶143

3 (2001) 10 SCC 715

¶144

18 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶145

the subject properties because they have not prosecuted the suit themselves?

¶146

As recorded by this Court at the very beginning the suit is dismissed for default on 08.09.2016, but the suit is restored on 24.11.2016 on an application under Order IX of CPC by the purchaser. The civil Court has restored the suit with the learned counsel for the deceased, Sri Jagadish, signifying that the application could be allowed restoring the suit on heavy cost. The restoration of the suit, in the light of this submission, is unconditional and it is not qua the purchaser alone. The civil Court’s order dated 24.11.2016 in this regard is unequivocal. If the suit is thus restored, and that too on consent, the appellants cannot take advantage of either the civil Court’s observation in the course of the impugned judgment or in the operative portion that the suit against the respondents is dismissed for default. The civil Court’s observation as aforesaid is contrary to the circumstances on record and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the first point for consideration is answered against the appellants.

¶147

19 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶148

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the purchaser has purchased the subject properties pendente lite from the respondents and unless the respondents’ rights in the subject properties are decided upon in the suit at their instance, he cannot claim any right. This contention is based on the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act⁴ , [for short, ‘ the TP Act’ ] . In fact, the reliance is upon of the decision of the Apex Court in T.S.Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindamma and another [supra]. However, this Court must examine the merits of this contention in the peculiarities of the case and the settled law

¶149

4 52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.— During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.

¶150

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force .

¶151

20 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶152

insofar as the rights of a pendente lite purchaser and subject to the caution that this Court’s conclusion on this aspect is not in the teeth of the settled law.

¶153

The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has underscored the following as regards a pendente lite purchaser and the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens . [a] The provisions of Sec. 52 of the T.P. Act do not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes such purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation. [b] If during the pendency of a suit before a competent court where any right to an immovable property is directly and substantially in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under a decree that may be made in such suit. [c] If ultimately the title of a pendente lite transferor in the transferred property is upheld, the transferee’s title will not be affected, but on the other hand, if the title of the transferor’s rights are recognized or accepted only in part, the pendente lite transferee’s rights will be protected only to such extent. [d]

¶154

21 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶155

If however, it is held that the transferor did not hold title or the property is transferred entirely to another, the pendente lite purchaser will not be entitled to any right.

¶156

Sri V.M. Sheelant canvasses, as an extension of these salient propositions, that for the purchaser to acquire any interest in the subject properties under the four sale deeds dated 25.01.2012, the respondents’ right to 10/11^th share in the subject properties must be decided at their instance. This Court cannot accept this canvass in the peculiarities of the case. In this regard this Court must first observe that neither Sri Jagadish nor the appellants, who claim under him, dispute that the subject properties are ancestral properties and that the respondents were entitled to a share. Sri Jagadish has filed his written statement admitting that the respondents will be entitled to a share in the subject properties but disputing the quantum of the shares. In that event, not just Sri Jagadish/the appellants but also the respondents who are the daughters, or the class-1 legal heir of daughter, would be entitled to the subject properties as joint tenants.

¶157

22 - NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶158

A pendente lite purchaser, though cannot be

¶159

compelled to join a litigation by an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC under all circumstances, upon an application under Order XX Rule 10 of CPC by a pendente lite purchaser, he or she as the case may be, is generally permitted to come on record in a suit and continue the cause as pleaded by the transferor [and no other cause]. If the pendente lite purchaser does not exercise this option and chooses to remain outside the litigation, it would not be open to him / her to contend that the decree is not binding. In this regard, this Court could refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Dhurandar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and others⁵ .

¶160

A pendente lite purchaser is given the option in law to come on record in a suit as an assignee so that, in the event the transferors do not effectively prosecute the suit/ defend the suit, the purchaser can prosecute the proceedings for vindication of the cause set up by the

¶161

5 (2001) 6 SCC 534

¶162

NC: 2024: KHC-D:13082-DB RFA No. 100376 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100377 of 2018

¶163

23 -

¶164

transferor. If the contention that the purchaser cannot prosecute the suit unless the respondents [the plaintiffs] prosecute the suit for vindication of the cause is accepted, the rights of pendente lite purchaser will be entirely defeated. Consequentially, the second question is also answered against the appellants

¶165

Consequentially, the appeals stand rejected.

¶166

Sd/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶167

Sd/-

¶168

(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶169

YAN/bvv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Jagadish Krishnarao Kulkarni v. Smt. Sarojini W/O Vitthal Ankalekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadish Krishnarao Kulkarni v. Smt. Sarojini W/O Vitthal Ankalekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sumitra W/O. Ramanayak Patil Vs Sri. Ramanayak S/O. Dharamanayak Patil

Sri. Kallappa S/O. Basavana Gouda Vs Smt. Kamalamma @ Kamalakshi W/O. Late Ningappa

Virupakshappa S/O Lage Veerasangappa Halligudi Vs Smt. Nanda D/O Sharanaappa Halligudi

Shri.Narayan Rayappa Kadam Vs Shri.Sanju Rudrappa Kadam

Jagadish Krishnarao Kulkarni Vs Smt. Sarojini W/O Vitthal Ankalekar

State of Karnataka Vs Nagi Reddy S/O Eranna