Regular first appeal against a decree for partition and declaration. The court found the trial judge's omnibus declaration that the sale deed was null and void was excessive and partly allowed the appeal, setting aside that nullity finding while preserving the decree's non-binding effect on non-consenting parties.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2017 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT APT 600, 5 BAYARD ROAD, PITTSBURG PA 15213 USA.
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THEIR P.A. HOLDER
BHARATH N., S/O N. NARENDRA DEV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.80, 7TH CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU 560 078 …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V. JAVAHAR BABU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
D/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AND W/O. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NC: 2024:KHC:39122 RFA No. 1100 of 2017
BEGUR HOBLI 560 068, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
D/O. LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AND W/O LATE. ANANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 ARE ALL R/O DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI 560 068, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O BHARATHI E5 ELANKOLAM, GRADEN'S VELLA, YAMBALAM, SASTAMANGALAM POST, TRIVENDRAM 695 010 KERALA STATE.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VATTACHALLI HOUSE, KANNOKKARA POST, BADAGANA VIA, KOZHIKODE 573 102 KERALA STATE.
R/O NO.653/1, 5TH CROSS, BSK I STAGE BENGALURU 560 050
D/O M. RAJENDRA BABU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 22-24 ARE ALL R/O MOVVA VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 521 260.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.8-3-214-13-403 VENGAL RAO NAGAR COLONY, SRINIVAS NAGAR COLONY WEST, HYDERABAD 500 001, TELANGANA STATE.
W/O DR. K. SREERANGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.424, 7TH CROSS, I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560 011
…RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R15, R16, R18, R20, R22, R25, R27 - SERVED; NOTICE TO R12, R17, R19, R21, R23, R24 AND R26 D/W; NOTICE TO R14 IS D/W)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.6164/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 42ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel Sri. V. Javahar Babu appearing for the appellants. All the respondents are served and unrepresented except respondents No.12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 for whom the notice is dispensed with.
appellant, the grievance of the appellant is only to the extent of the learned Trial Judge observing in the operative portion of the impugned judgment that sale deed and such other documents which are registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, South are null and void.
Trial Judge after having held that by the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are not bound by the sale insofar as their
cases are concerned, but declaring that the entire sale deed is null and void has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
emphasis that in such cases, the entire sale deed cannot
NC: 2024:KHC:39122 RFA No. 1100 of 2017
be held as null and void. The Court while disposing of the suit should make observations that the sale deed would not bind such persons who are not parties to the sale deed and who have not executed the sale deed.
observation by the learned Judge in the operative portion holding that the sale deed as null and void has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice.
appellants herein cannot participate in final decree proceedings seeking their shares in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
9. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
the Trial Court in entirety, it is hereby classified that the decreeing of the suit holding that the
entire sale deed and such other documents which are registered in the Office of the SubRegistrar, South, pertaining to item No.1 of the suit property by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants herein as null and void is hereby set-aside.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations of the Trial Court that it shall not bind the rights of the plaintiffs by defendant No.3 is kept in tact.
as above, the appellants are at liberty to participate in the Final Decree Proceedings and seek their shares in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 24.11.1999.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
SNC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:SNN
2 issues framed by the court
Should the trial court decree declaring the entire sale deed null and void be clarified so that it binds only non-executing parties?
Can the appellants, as purchasers from parties who executed the sale, participate in final decree proceedings for their share?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vimala Manne
Srinivasa Rao Manne
Sarojamma
Meenakashamma
Vishalakshamma
Venkatesh Reddy
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
