Remanded

Sri. Nagappa S/O Late Ramaiah v. Sri. N. Khaleel S/O Late Sri. Noor Sab

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024RFA/325/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaring a sale deed void. Court allowed production of a certified mutation record and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration with liberty to adduce further evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.11.2010 set aside; matter remitted to Trial Court with liberty to lead additional evidence; original document returned to appellants.

Sri. Nagappa S/O Late Ramaiah Vs Sri. N. Khaleel S/O Late Sri… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2011 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED 62 YEARS, (SINCE DEAD BY LRS)SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED 56 YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTRAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶9

SRI. MANJUNAT

¶10

AGED 35 YEARSS/O LATE NAGAPPA R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶11

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI ASHOKA AGED 33 YEARSS/O LATE NAGAPPA R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶13

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED 31 YEARSS/O LATE NAGAPPA R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶14

SMT. KANTHAMMA AGED 65 YEARSW/O LATE PILLAPPAR/A JAMBUSAVARI DINNE, J P NAGAR8TH PHASE, BANGALORE.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶16

SMT. RATHNAMMA

¶17

AGED 60 YEARSW/O SRI. B NANJAPPA R/A NO. 200, JALAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE560 013.

¶18

SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED 55 YEARSW/O SRI. APPAIAHR/A NO. 56, B S K III STAGE, BANGALORE560 085.

¶19

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED 45 YEARSW/O A B NAGARAJ, R/A MELUR, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, KOLAR DIST.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. N N RAJ URS.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. N. KHALEEL S/O LATE SRI. NOOR SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO. 5/84, L I C COLONY, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD LAYOUT EAST, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE560011.

¶24

SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O LATE S RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANNERUGHATTA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK DEAD BY LRS SMT. KANAKAMM W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA AGED 59 YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE.

¶25

SMT. S RADHAMMA W/O EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A TIRUMENAHALLI, BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶26

SMT. S NAGAVENI W/O P SHANKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A JAMBOOSAVRI DINNE, J P NAGAR8TH PHASE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶28

SMT. S SUJATHA @ SUDHA W/O R K RAMU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶29

SMT. S RAMAMAN W/O K CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A GOPALAPURA, BAGLUR ROAD, MANDOOR POST, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.

¶30

R CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT BAGHYAMMA W/O LATE R CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLIBANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶31

SMT. ARCHANA D/O R CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARSR/A DODDA HAGADA VILLAGE, C D HOSKOTE POST, ANEKAL TALUK,BANGALORE RURAL DIST.

¶32

SMT. VINEETHA D/O LATE R CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARSR/A NALLAIAHANA DODDI VILLAGE, THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST, ANEKAL BANGALORE RURAL DIST.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. R1- N KHALEEL SD.,ADVOCATE; RESPONDENTS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶35

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 TO 3 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2010 PASSED IN O.S.4893/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH44, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

This appeal arises from the judgment and

¶42

decree in O.S.No.4893/2005 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

¶43

The above suit is filed seeking relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by mother of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1, as null and void. The plaintiffs claim that the property belongs to their father Sri. Ramaiah. It is also their contention that the said Sri. Ramaiah died in the year 1982 leaving behind three sons and four daughters and it is further stated that after the death of Sri. Ramaiah, name of his wife is entered in the property record. However, there was no relinquishment of right by remaining class-I heirs of Sri. Ramaiah, in favour of his wife. The suit is filed on the premise that the property is allegedly sold by plaintiffs' mother in favour of defendant No.1 without the consent and the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶46

The suit was contested by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 took a stand that the property belongs to the mother of the plaintiffs.

¶47

The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that the mother of the plaintiffs was the owner of the property and dismissed the suit.

¶48

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said

¶49

suit, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Trial Court committed a grave error in holding that the property exclusively belongs to the mother of the plaintiffs. He would submit that the property in fact belongs to the father of the plaintiffs and after his demise, the plaintiffs and their mother jointly inherited the property and mother could not have sold the property without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs.

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellants would also

¶52

invite the attention of this Court to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶54

Procedure, 1908, which is filed before this Court along with certified copy of the mutation No.1/1998-99 pertaining to the suit property and other properties. Referring to the said document, he would contend that the document would reveal that the property originally belonged to the father of

¶55

the plaintiffs and mother of the plaintiffs was not the absolute owner. She inherited the property along with the plaintiffs' and the remaining children. Thus, he would contend that the finding of the Trial Court is erroneous inasmuch as the property is not the exclusive property of the plaintiffs' mother. The respondents though served are not present before this Court.

¶56

This Court has considered the contentions

¶57

raised at the Bar and also perused the record.

¶58

The following points arise for consideration.

¶59

(a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the suit property is the exclusive property of the mother of the plaintiffs.

¶60

(b) Whether the appellants have made out a ground for production of additional documents."

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶63

Since the suit is filed challenging the sale deed

¶64

executed by plaintiffs' mother, on the premise that the property belonged to the plaintiffs' father and after the demise of the plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs' mother and the plaintiffs' jointly inherited the property, the Court has to consider whether there are any materials placed before the Court to hold that the properties are the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. Before the Trial Court except raising a contention that the property is the ancestral property, no material is placed before this Court. However, before this Court, the certified copy of mutation No.1/1998-99 is produced to substantiate the contention that the property in dispute was indeed the property of the

¶65

plaintiffs' father and after his demise in 1982, the properties were transferred to the name of mother of the plaintiffs namely Smt. Seethamma. This document was not produced before the Trial Court. However, an application is filed before this Court seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents. Respondents though served are not present before this Court and objection is not filed to the said application. Since the

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶67

document, which is sought to be produced is the certified copy of the public record, this Court is of the view that the document relating to succession after the death of Sri. Ramaiah is a relevant document to be considered to decide the controversy.

¶68

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

¶69

view that the application for production of additional document is to be allowed and accordingly, same is allowed.

¶70

Since respondents are not before this Court,

¶71

this Court is of the view that the matter is to be remitted to the Trial Court to afford an opportunity to the respondents to have their say on the additional document, which is sought to be produced.

¶72

Hence, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore are set aside.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:9333 RFA No. 325 of 2011

¶77

ii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with liberty reserved to both the parties to lead additional evidence.

¶78

iii) The Trial Court shall consider the case afresh based on the additional evidence as well as the evidence already recorded and to pass appropriate order without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶79

iv) Registry to return the additional document produced before this Court after retaining the xerox copy, to the appellants.

¶80

v) Registry to send back the Trial Court Records.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

PHM

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Nagappa S/O Late Ramaiah v. Sri. N. Khaleel S/O Late Sri. Noor Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagappa S/O Late Ramaiah v. Sri. N. Khaleel S/O Late Sri. Noor Sab

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

Smt Vani Ranganath W/O. Ranganatha Naidu Vs the Karnataka Slum Clearance

Sri Muninarasappa Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Sri S N Sreerama Raju

Sri P M Pai S/O Late P Venkatesh Pai Vs Canara Bank

Sri S Rama Rao Vs Smt. R B Sarojini Calab

G Parameshwara Vs Vittalnagar House Building Co-Operative Society Limited

Sri. Santhosh.S.S Vs State of Karnataka