Dismissed

Shankarappa S/O Solabappa v. Solabappa

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024RFA/2233/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a dismissal of a suit seeking declaration and partition of properties. The High Court rejected claims that the properties were ancestral, holding they were self-acquired by the sole appellant after his adoptive mother's death. Upholding the lower court, the bench found the plaintiffs lacked locus standi as the father had authorized earlier sales and never contested their val

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs; the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2007 dismissing the suit for declaration and partition are confirmed.

Shankarappa S/O Solabappa Vs Solabappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2233/2007(PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANKARAPPA S/O. SOLABAPPA KALKANNAVAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMKUR GALLI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶10

BASAVARAJ S/O. SOLABAPPA KALAKANNAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARALIKATTI MULLAN ONI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶11

IRAWWA D/O. SOLABAPPA KALAKANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARALIKATTI MULLAN ONI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶12

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SEETAWWA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA DESHANUR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DEVALAPUR, TALUK: BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHANTAWWA W/O. BABU SHINTRI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BADLI TALUK, SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V. P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶18

AND:

¶19

SOLABAPPA A/F. CHAYAPPA KALKANNAVAR @ GAJENDRAGAD, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S WHO ALL ARE ON RECORD AS APPELLANT NO.1 TO 5).

¶20

MALLIKARJUN S/O. BABULAL TAHSILDAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKTA NAGAR, NEAR TAJ NAGAR, UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶21

VASU S/O. VISHNUKANTSA HABIB, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶22

BHARATI W/O. HONNAPPA GANADAL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H. NO. MIG 260, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶23

PARASHURAMSA S/O RAMANATHSA HABIB, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S.

¶24

5A. NAGARATNA WD/O. PARASHURAM HABIB, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.1, OPP. HEBBAL, KUMARAVYASA NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 021.

¶25

5B. PRADEEP S/O. PARASHURAM HABIB, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.1, OPP.HEBBAL, KUMARAVYASA NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI -580 021.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶27

5C. AMAR S/O. PARASHURAM HABIB, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.1, OPP. HEBBAL, KUMARAVYASA NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 021.

¶28

5D. ROHIT S/O. PARASHURAM HABIB, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.1, OPP.HEBBAL, KUMARAVYASA NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI -580 021.

¶29

5E. ABHISHEK S/O. PARASHURAM HABIB, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.1, OPP.HEBBAL, KUMARAVYASA NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI -580 021.

¶30

BASAVARAJ S/O. CHENNABASAPPA DHARWADKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS, R/O: RAVENUE COLOY, VIJAYNAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶31

IRAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA MADAGALI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER, R/O: P. C. JABIN COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶32

GURUNATH S/O. RANGARAO DESAI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: 26, BANASHANKARI BADAVANE, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶33

9. MARJU

¶34

S/O. BASAVANNEPPA DYAMNNAVAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: NO.1811/1, 2^ND CROSS, TIMBER YARD ROAD, SIDDESHWARNAGAR, UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶36

SMT. SUVARNA W/O. SURESH KUPPASAD, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PLOT NO. 44 AND 45, GANDHINAGAR, ALMATTI ROAD, BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DISTRICT: BIJAPUR.

¶37

SMT. VIJAYA SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGE: 30, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O: 92, SUDDESHWAR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶38

DEVANAND S/O. VASUDEV SHETTY, AGE: 48, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3/B, SAI NIWAS GOLDEN PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶39

ASHOK S/O. VENKATRAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SILVER TOWN, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶40

VARDHAMAN S/O. BHEEMRAO GONGADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O: H. NO. 66, MADHURA CHETAN COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶41

SMT. SHAILAJA W/O. ARUN BABALESHWAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PADMAKUNJ, 32^ND CROSS, LINGARAJ NAGAR (EAST), HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶42

16. DHARMANNA

¶43

S/O. SIDDAPPA SARIAKR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O: VAYPUTRA BADAVANE, SHRINAGAR ROAD, UNKAL , HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶45

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O. SANGAPPA KADAPATTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MIG - 400, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶46

KUMARI GEETA S/O. GANGAPPA KADAPATTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MIG 400, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶47

BASAVARAJ S/O. YALLAPPA KARIDIKOPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAJJANAR BUILDING, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4, R5(A TO E); SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3, R6 TO R15, R17, R18; NOTICE TO R16 AND R19 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)

¶50

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2007 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.69/2005 AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶51

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

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

Plaintiffs in O.S.No.69/2005 on the file of learned I

¶55

Additional Civil Judge (SR.DN), Hubli, are impugning the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2007 dismissing their suit for declaration and for partition with cost of Rs.30,000/-.

¶56

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶57

Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.69/2005 against defendants seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 15.03.2004 executed by defendant No.2 in favour defendant Nos.3 to 5 are not binding on them and for consequential relief of partition and separate possession. The sale deed dated 19.12.2005 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 19 are not binding on the plaintiffs. Similar sale deeds dated 04.02.2006, 04.01.2006, 11.05.2006, 15.04.2006, 24.05.2006, 02.08.2006, 27.07.2006, 16.02.2006, 10.02.2006, 03.05.2006, 17.05.2006 and 31.01.2006

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶59

executed by defendant No.3 are not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶60

It is contended by plaintiffs that they are the children of defendant No.1 who in turn is the adopted son of Smt.Basawwa W/O Chayappa Kalakannavar. Chayappa Kalakannavar, was the owner of the schedule properties i.e. survey No.553/3+4 situated at Unkal, Hubli taluka, Dharwad District. After his death, Smt.Basawwa-defendant No.1 succeeded to the properties being her adopted son. Plaintiffs being the children of defendant No.1 were in joint possession and enjoyment of scheduled properties as ancestral properties.

¶61

It is contended that the defendant No.1 is

¶62

addicted to bad voices and said to have executed general power of attorney deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of survey No.533/3+4 but never executed any document in respect of survey No.533/1 referred to in the schedule. The plaintiffs taking clue that the 3^rd parties may take advantage of helpless condition of defendant No.1

¶63

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶64

may concoct document, gave public notice in the news paper cautioning the general public not to enter into any agreement with defendant No.1 or 2 on the basis of the general power of attorney deed. In spite that defendant No.2 executed three sale deeds dated 15.03.2004 in respect of the scheduled property selling the same in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 5 respectively.

¶65

It is contended that since defendant No.1 had no absolute right to execute general power of attorney deed in respect of the scheduled property those sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. Moreover even as per general power of attorney deed Ex.P.17, the authority was given to defendant No.2 to sale only Survey No.553/3+4 and not any other property. Therefore, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 15.03.2004 are not binding on them and also for partition and separate possession of the scheduled properties.

¶66

The plaint was got amended to seek declaration in respect of series of sale deeds said to have been

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶68

executed by defendant No.3 in respect of various sites formed in the land in Sy.No.553/3+4. Defendant No.1 has not contested the suit. Defendant No.4 filed written statement denying the contention taken by the plaintiffs contending that her husband purchased 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.553/1 under the sale deed dated 15.03.2004 for valuable consideration. Husband of defendant No.4 died on 15.08.2004 leaving behind him defendant No.4 and her daughter as his legal representatives. Therefore, defendant No.4 and her daughter succeeded to the property in question.

¶69

It is contended that defendant No.3 had filed the suit O.S.No.25/2005 against defendant No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 admitted execution of GPA deed and he never questioned the registered sale deeds dated 15.03.2004. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶70

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396

¶71

RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶72

Defendant No.5 filed written statement denying

¶73

the contentions taken by the plaintiffs and contended that he had purchased 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.553/1 under registered sale deed dated 15.03.2004 for valuable consideration. Defendant No.2 is the GPA holder of defendant No.1 and therefore, defendant No.5 is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property.

¶74

Defendant No.13 filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs. It is contended that suit properties were originally belonging to the propositus Chayappa. He married Basawwa and they are not having any issues. After the death of Chayappa, his wife Basawwa inherited the property and she has adopted defendant No.1. Therefore, defendant No.1 inherited the property from his adoptive mother Basawwa, only after her death. Therefore, plaintiffs are not having any right, title and interest over the schedule property.

¶75

It is contended that defendant No.1 executed

¶76

GPA deed in favour of defendant No.2 and on the basis of

¶77

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶78

the same, defendant No.2 executed the sale deed dated 15.03.2004 alienating Sy.No.553/3+4 for valuation consideration. Therefore, defendant No.3 acquired right, title and interest over the same under registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 had never challenged execution of the GPA deed or the sale deeds. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.

¶79

Defendant Nos.6 to 9 who are purchasers of the sites from defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs and praying for dismissal of the suit.

¶80

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were came to be framed by the trial court.

¶81

i) Whether plaintiffs prove that suit properties are ancestral joint family properties?

¶82

ii) Whether they further prove that defendant No.1 who was addicted to bad vices, refused to give up their shares in the suit properties?

¶83

iii) Whether they further prove that defendant No.2 by taking undue advantage of bad vices of defendant No.1 obtained General Power of attorney and agreement of

¶84

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶85

sale of suit proepty on 27.6.2000 and sale deed on 15.3.2004 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 and husband of defendant No.5 inspite of publication of notice by the wife of defendant No.1?

¶86

iv) Whether they further prove the alleged false entry in revenue records in collusion with revenue official?

¶87

v) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for 5/6^th share in the suit properties?

¶88

vi) Whether suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties? vii) Whether court fee paid is proper and correct one? viii) What order or decree?

¶89

Plaintiffs have examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P130 in support of their contentions. Defendants examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D9 in support of their defence. The trial court after taking into consideration all these materials on record answered issue Nos.1 to 7 in the negative and accordingly, suit of the plaintiffs was came to be dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/- payable to defendant Nos.3 to 5. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this court.

¶90

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶91

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sangram

¶92

S.Kulkarni for the appellants, learned counsel Sri.F.V.Patil for respondent No.3, learned counsel Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar for respondent No.4 and respondent No.5(A to E), learned counsel Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni for respondent Nos.6 to 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18.

¶93

Learned counsel for the appellants contended

¶94

that schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Solabappa-defendant No.1 and he acquired title from his mother Basawwa. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for equal share along with Solabappa. Defendant No.1 said to have executed GPA deed in favour of defendant No.2 as per Ex.P17. Even as per Ex.P17, defendant No.1 had not authorized defendant No.2 to sell Sy.No.553/1 measuring 23 guntas each, which were sold in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 respectively. Defendant No.1 had not authorized defendant No.2 to alienate those properties, defendant Nos.4 and 5 have not acquired any title over the schedule properties. He placed reliance on the decision

¶95

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶96

of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs.Umadevi Nambiar vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese¹ to contend that when the recitals in the agreement and in the GPA deed do not refer to the properties which were subject matter of the sale deed, the trial court committed an error in dismissing the suit.

¶97

Learned counsel fairly conceded that in O.S.No.25/2005 filed by defendant No.3 against defendant No.1 seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction, the matter was compromised and the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was rectified by accepting additional amount. Hence, learned counsel submitted that he is not claiming any relief against defendant No.3.

¶98

Learned counsel also contended that Exs.P20 and 21 said to have been executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 had no basis. Even though defendant Nos.4 and 5 had taken up the

¶99

1 2022(7) SCC 90

¶100

15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶101

contention that the sale deeds marked as Exs.P20 and 21 were based on the GPA deed executed by defendant No.1, no such documents are produced before the trial court. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as claimed in respect of two portions of the land measuring 23 guntas each in Sy.No.553/1. Therefore, he pays for allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part.

¶102

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 opposing the appeal submitted that the plaintiffs were not co-parceners of the schedule property. The schedule property is the self-acquired property of Solabappa, as he acquired it after the death of his adoptive mother Smt.Basawwa. The plaintiffs have no right over the schedule properties at the time of filing of the suit. They had no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit before the trial court.

¶103

Learned counsel submitted that as per Ex.P48the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.25/2005,

¶104

16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶105

defendant No.1 categorically admitted execution of GPA deed in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 also admitted that he has authorized defendant No.2 to sell the properties in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Under such circumstances, plaintiffs could not have maintained the suit.

¶106

Learned counsel submitted that defendant No.1 had filed the suit O.S.No.620/2004 against defendant Nos.2 to 5 in respect of the schedule property seeking permanent injunction. The said suit was came to be dismissed, as the suit is only for bare injunction and no relief of declaration was sought in respect of the registered sale deeds. Defendant No.1 has not challenged the said judgment and decree. Even in the present suit, defendant No.1 has not taken the defence that he had not authorized defendant No.2 to execute the sale deed. He never challenged any of the sale deeds. Under such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court on proper appreciation of the materials on record

¶107

17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶108

dismissed the suit. There is no merit n the appeal. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶109

Learned counsel for defendant No.3 submitted

¶110

that since the learned counsel for the appellants conceded that he has not challenged sale made in favour of defendant No.3, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶111

Perused the materials on record. The point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶112

“Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court calls for interference by this court?”

¶113

My answer to the above point is in the negative for

¶114

the following:

¶115

REASONS

¶116

24. The admitted facts of the case are that the

¶117

schedule property was originally owned by the propositus Chayappa. He died in the year 1918 leaving behind him

¶118

his wife Smt.Basawwa. After the death of Chayappa, the record of rights in respect of the schedule properties

¶119

18 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶120

mutated in the name of Basawwa. It is also admitted that Chayappa and Basawwa were not having any issues. Basawwa adopted Solabappa-defendant No.1 on 12.04.1930. Basawwa said to have died on 21.09.1935. Therefore, only after the death of Basawwa, defendant No.1 acquired title over the schedule property.

¶121

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs even though contended that schedule property is the ancestral property or joint family property, there is no explanation as to how the property assumed the characteristics of the joint family property or ancestral property of defendant No.1. The property was the self-acquired property of Solabappa, who acquired it after the death of his adoptive mother Smt.Basawwa who died on 21.09.1935. It is also admitted that name of Solabappa was came to be mutated in respect of the schedule properties on 03.11.1935.

¶122

It is conceded that defendant No.1 had

¶123

executed GPA deed as per Ex.P17 in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to sell Sy.No.553/3+4. Accordingly,

¶124

19 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶125

defendant No.2 sold the said property in favour of defendant No.3 under registered sale deed marked as Ex.P19. In view of the compromise entered into between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 in O.S.No.25/2005, learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that he is not pressing the suit against defendant No.3. I do not wish to discuss much about the sale deed Ex.P19 executed by defendant No.2 as GPA holder of defendant No.1.

¶126

Now the question arises as to whether the sale deeds produced as per Exs.P20 and 21 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of husband of defendant No.4 and 5 in respect of 23 guntas each in Sy.No.533/1 are relied and binding on the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the joint owners or coparceners in respect of the said property along with defendant No.1 and therefore, they are entitled for the relief of declaration as well as partition.

¶127

It is pertinent to note that even though defendant No.1 was alive when the suit was filed on

¶128

20 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶129

02.03.2005, he has not chosen to contest the suit. He has

¶130

also not denied that he had authorized defendant No.2 to

¶131

sell the schedule properties. He has not denied the execution of Exs.P20 and 21 by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Admittedly, defendant No.1-

¶132

Solabappa died in the year 2012. Till his death, He has not chosen to dispute the validity of the sale deeds Exs.P20 and 21. When the plaintiffs were not having any right, title and interest over the schedule property during the lifetime of defendant No.1, it cannot be said that they are having

¶133

any locus standi to file and maintain a suit during his lifetime. When the plaintiffs were not having any manner of right, title and interest over the schedule property, they could not have sought for either declaration that the sale deeds as per Exs.P20 and 21 are not binding on them or for partition and separate possession. By the time, defendant No.1 died in the year 2012, the schedule property was already sold on 15.03.2004 under registered sale deeds Exs.P19 to 21. Therefore, no property was available for partition between the plaintiffs.

¶134

21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶135

Learned counsel for the appellant placed

¶136

reliance on the decision in the case of Mrs.Umadevi Nambiar (supra) to contend that when the owner of the property had not authorized GPA holder to sell the particular property under the GPA deed, the agent could not have sold the property in favour of a third party the under registered sale deed and that even though such sale deed is executed, the purchaser will not get any right under the same. The facts and circumstances of the case considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs.Umadevi

¶137

Nambiar (supra) is entirely different. There were two sisters who were parties to the suit and admittedly, they are having right over the property. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered all the terms of GPA deed in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and held in para 19 as under:

¶138

“Para 19. It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has” (Nemo dat quod non habet). The appellant’s sister did not have the power to sell the property to the vendors of the respondent. Therefore, the

¶139

22 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶140

vendors of the respondent could not have derived any valid title to the property. If the vendors of the respondent themselves did not have any title, they had nothing to convey to the respondent. Except perhaps the litigation.”

¶141

In the present case, as discussed above, the plaintiffs were not having any manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property till the death of defendant No.1. Ex.p19 to 21 are the three different sale deeds, which are dated 15.03.2004. Defendant No.1 had filed the suit O.S.No.620/2004 against defendant Nos.2 to 5 in respect of the very same schedule property, but he had never sought for declaration that the sale deeds were not binding on him. He never sought for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by his agent defendant No.2. The only relief sought in O.S.No.620/2004 was for permanent injunction. Admittedly, the said suit was came to be dismissed by the trial court. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 had never challenged the said judgment and decree dismissing the suit. Interestingly, defendant No.1 had also not taken any defence against defendant

¶142

23 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶143

Nos.2 to 5 in the present suit, even though he was alive on the date of the suit, till 2012. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file and maintain the suit till the death of defendant No.1. By the time, defendant No.1 died in the year 2012, the suit properties were already sold under registered sale deeds. When defendant No.1 has not chosen to avoid any of these registered sale deeds, it will not give right to the plaintiffs to file and maintain the suit. Hence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as sought for.

¶144

I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The trial court has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer the point in the negative proceed to pass the following:

¶145

ORDER

¶146

i) The appeal is dismissed with costs.

¶147

24 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6396 RFA No. 2233 of 2007

¶148

ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 08.08.2007 passed in O.S.No.69/2005 on the

¶149

file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubballi is confirmed.

¶150

SD/JUDGE

¶151

AC,MBS/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Shankarappa S/O Solabappa v. Solabappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankarappa S/O Solabappa v. Solabappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayansa S/O Takkusa Raibagi Since Deceased by Lrs Smt Prabhavathi Vs Mohansa S/O Nagusa Chawan

Rangappa S/O Govindappa Jalikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Tulasa W/O Prakash Patil Vs the Tahsildar

Athani Sugars Ltd., Vs the Joint Commissioner of

M/S. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd., Vs the Joint Commissioner

Sri Vinayaka Projects Firm Vs State of Karnataka