Allowed

Sri Venkataswamy v. Smt Lagumakka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024RFA/812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Regular First Appeal concerning suit for partition, the High Court of Karnataka Allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal. The Court held the properties were joint family assets and the sale deeds executed without the minor plaintiff's consent were invalid.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment setting aside the suit was set aside. The suit was decreed declaring the plaintiffs and defendants 23-27 entitled to a half share in the schedule properties.

Sri Venkataswamy Vs Smt Lagumakka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.812 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VENKATASWAMY

¶8

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)

¶9

1 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶11

2 . SMT. ANJANAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY, D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

3 . SMT. MANJULA W/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶13

4 . SMT. SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶14

5 . SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶15

6 . SMT. SHARADA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶16

SL. NOS 1 IS WIFE AND SL.NO.2 TO 6 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE VENKATASWAMY

¶17

¶18

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT YERANAPALYA VILLAGE, KOWDENAHALLI DHAKALE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶19

...APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHANKARE GOWDA V N., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

1 . SMT. LAGUMAKKA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT NO.150, YERANAPALYA DHAKALE, KOWDENAHALLI DHAKALE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶23

2 . SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.99, GREENWOOD LAYOUT, NEAR JUBILEE COLLEGE, JINKKA THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶24

3 . SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.150, YERANAPALYA DHAKALE, KOWDENAHALLI DHAKALE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶25

4 . SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,

¶26

¶27

5 . SRI. LAKKAPPA S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶28

6 . SRI. M. MARIAPPA S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶29

DEFENDANTS NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.134, YERANAPALYA VILLAGE, KOWDENAHALLI DHAKALE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶30

7 . SRI. M. BYRAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.147, YERANAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶31

8 . SRI. M. GANESHA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.65, KULLAPPA BUILDING, 5^TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, SIR M. V. NAGARA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶32

9 . SRI. RAMESHA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.148, YERANAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶33

10 . SRI. SIVAKUMAR M S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶34

¶35

11 . SRI. M. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶36

RESPONDENT NOS.10 & 11 ARE R/AT BEHIND MUNESHWARANAGARA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶37

12 . SRI. M. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.148, YERANAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶38

13 . SRI. B. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE. BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.147, YERANAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶39

14 . SMT. SUGUNA W/O SAMPANGIRAMA REDDY, D/O LATE G. RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DASAPPA LAYOUT, 3^RD BLOCK, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶40

15 . SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY, D/O LATE G. RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE, C. V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE.

¶41

16 . SMT. HEMAVATHY W/O SADANANDA REDDY, D/O G. RAMAREDDY,

¶42

¶43

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT CHANNASANDRA, BANASAWADI POST, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶44

17 . SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE G. RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT G. RAMA REDDY LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶45

18 . SMT. LAKSHMI S. MUDALIAR W/O SRI. S.K.MUDALIAR, MAJOR

¶46

19 . SRI. S. K. MUDALIAR S/O SRI. D.N.K.MUDALIAR MAJOR,

¶47

SRI. SHEKAR PUJAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)

¶48

20 . SMT. GIRIJA POOJAR W/O LATE SHEKHAR POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶49

21 . KUM. SALATHA POOJAR D/O LATE SHEKHAR POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶50

22 . KUM. SUMALATHA POOJAR D/O LATE SHEKHAR POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶51

SL. NOS. 18 TO 22 ARE R/AT VASU BUILDING, NEAR DASAPPA LAYOUT, YEARANAPALYA VILLAGE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶52

¶53

23 . SRI. V. SHARAVANA S/O SRI. N. UMAPATHI, MAJOR, R/AT NO.18, OLD NO.6, 7^TH CROSS, ESHWARA LAYOUT, INDIRANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 038.

¶54

24 . SRI. M. THIPPAIAH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.150, YARAYANAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶55

25 . SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.125, BUKASAGAR VILLAGE, KALBALA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 106.

¶56

26 . SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.150, YERRANAPALYA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶57

27 . SMT. DODDA GOWRAMMA W/O RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.199, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, LAGGERE, MAIN ROAD, RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶58

¶59

28 . SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O CHANDRAMURTHY, DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶60

28(a) SMT. LAKSHMI W/O L. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.134, 8^TH CROSS, YERRANAPALYA,

¶61

BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶62

29 . SMT. CHIKKA GOWRAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.331A, NEAR KRISHNAIAH CLINIC, BANGALORE BELLARY ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110.

¶63

...RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; SRI. V. B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R14 & R17; SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R24;

¶65

SRI. RAVIKUMARA M., ADVOCATE FOR R28(A);

¶66

R1, R2, R15, R25 & R29 ARE SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED:3/7/24, NOTICE TO R18 TO R23 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶67

VIDE ORDER DATED:7/9/23, NOTICE TO R7 TO R13 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶68

VIDE ORDER DATED:30/1/24, NOTICE TO R3, R26, R27 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶69

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.6852/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶70

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.11.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶71

¶72

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON : 20.11.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 09.12.2024

¶73

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

¶74

CAV JUDGMENT

¶75

This appeal filed by the appellants/legal heirs of the plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore, in OS.No.6852/2005, dated 26.02.2019 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶76

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants in the Trial Court.

¶77

The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

¶78

The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of A, B and C schedule properties as under;

¶79

¶80

SCHEDULE A and B (COMPACT BLOCK)

¶81

All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land measuring 39 guntas and 12 guntas in Sy.Nos.100/2 and 116/2, situated at Kowdenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, commonly bounded on:-

¶82

East by: Obalappa's property

¶83

West by: Pothalaiah's Kunte

¶84

North by: Kukkala Muniswamappa's property

¶85

South by: Chinnappa's property

¶86

SCHEDULE C property

¶87

All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land measuring 3 acre 18 guntas, including 4 guntas kharab in Sy.No.112/4, situated at Kowdenahalli village, K.R.Puram hobli, Bangalore east taluk and bounded on:

¶88

East by: Kasavanahalli Ramaiah's property

¶89

West by: Batayi Bande's property

¶90

North by: Pothaiahs Kunte

¶91

South by: Dongaru & Banaswadi Koorlappa's property

¶92

It is alleged by the plaintiff that one Booragappa was the

¶93

propositus of the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 and the genealogical tree is as under;

¶94

¶95

Sri.Booragappa Smt.Chamundamma

¶96

Late Sri.Munivenkatappa Sri.Muni Hanumaiah Father of plaintiff, defendant Father of defendant Nos.2, 3 Nos.5, 6 and husband Husband of 1^st defendant of defendant No.4

¶97

M.Venkatashami M.Muniyappa M.Muniyappa Lakkappa Mariyappa

¶98

It is alleged by the plaintiff that one Booragappa had two

¶99

sons namely late Munivenkatappa the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and husband of defendant No.1, and 2^nd son is Munihanumaiah the father of the defendant No.5 and 6 and husband of defendant No.4. The Kowdhenahalli village was a Jodi Inam village. After Mysore (Personal 2 Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came into force, the inam lands were vested with the Government by way of gazette notification published by the state. The Inam Abolition Act provided for grant of occupancy rights under section 4, 5, 6 and 9 the of Act. The father of the plaintiff and his uncle Munihanumaiah were cultivating the lands under jodidaar and were paying the premium to the Jodidaar. The items were granted by the inam Deputy Commissioner to the father of the plaintiff and in favour of his uncle Munihanumaiah. The plaintiff in

¶100

¶101

case Nos.83-97/1959-60 in respect of Sy.No.112/4 and case No. 98-113/1959/60 in respect of Sy.No.116/2 and 100/2. At the time of grant of the above said properties, the plaintiff was minor and he was represented by his uncle Munihanumaiah. The grant was in the name of the plaintiff and Munihanumaiah was only as minor guardian.

¶102

It is further alleged that the family of the Munivenkatappa and Munihanumaiah owned a immovable property measuring 39 guntas in Sy.No.116/2 (old No.116), 10 guntas in Sy.No.100 (new No.100/2), and 3 acres 18 guntas, including 4 guntas of kharab in Sy.No.112/4 of Kowdhenahally village, K.R.Puram Hobli. The family of Munivenkatappa, Munihanumaiah is a joint family. Munihanumaiah was the kartha of family, after his death, 4^th defendant continued to manage the affairs of the family. The schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 6, which were granted in the occupancy rights from the Inam Deputy Commissioner to the plaintiff, plaintiff's father Munivenkatappa and his uncle Munihanumaiah. At the time of granting suit schedule properties, the plaintiff was minor but represented his uncle Munihanumaiah. The revenue records were entered in their name, it is clear that land measuring 3 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.112/4, 0-10 guntas in Sy.No.100/2, 0-39

¶103

¶104

guntas in Sy.No.116/2 of Kowdenahally village, was granted by way of occupancy rights in the name of the plaintiff and his uncle Munihanumaiah, the husband of the 4^th defendant and they are cultivating the lands. The plaintiff is entitled 1/2 share in one side and said Munihanumaiah entitled to remaining half share. These being the facts, defendant No.1 to 6 along with Munivenkatappa and the Munihanumaiah (father of the plaintiff and uncle) have sold the entire land in Sy.No.112/4 (suit C schedule property) to one Muniswamappa. Thereafter the said land was repurchased by Munihanumaiah, the husband of 4^th defendant out of joint family fund and nucleus as they are living as joint family members. There was no partition by metes and bounds. The said repurchase was made on 17.12.1979. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 and father of the plaintiff and his uncle Munihanumaiah executed sale deed on 28.04.1988 in favour of one Rama Reddy, the husband of 17^th defendant. The said transaction was neither authorized nor confirmed nor within the knowledge of the plaintiff and he was not a party to the said transaction. The property allegedly transferred as C schedule property under the said instrument. It is contended that in the year 1960, Munihanumaiah again created documents in favour of the Nemichand in respect of A and B schedule properties. In the said instrument there is recital that the said instrument was a conditional sale with a rider to repurchase the same. Accordingly,

¶105

¶106

on 17.06.1975 the amount raised under the said instrument executed in 1960 to Nemichand was repaid from the joint family corpus and A and B properties were repurchased by the said Hindu undivided family in the name of defendant No.4 Kempamma, who is managing the Hindu Undivided Family. In turn 4^th defendant executed a sale deed in favour of father of defendant Nos.7 to 12 and defendant No.13 on 22.01.1979. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff was not a party to the aforesaid transactions nor said transactions were either authorised or his knowledge and as such the transactions are not binding on the plaintiff.

¶107

It is further alleged that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and late Munihanumaiah and Munivenkatappa were colluded with each other. The defendant Nos.7 to 17 have formed layouts and sold site to different purchasers. The defendant Nos.18 to 21 having no manner of right, title and interest over the A schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Hence this suit.

¶108

In pursuance of the suit summons issued to the defendants, defendant Nos.1 to 13, 15, 18 to 20 and 22 to 27 have appeared through their counsels. The defendant Nos.8, 13, 18 to 20, 22 to 27 have filed their separate written statements. The

¶109

¶110

defendant Nos.7, 9 to 12 have adopted written statement of the 8^th defendant. The defendant No.1 to 6 and 15 have not filed written statement. The defendant Nos.14, 16, 17 and 21 have not appeared before the court, hence placed them as ex-parte.

¶111

The defendant No.8 filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint. According to the 8^th defendant one Munihanumaiah was cultivating the lands under the Jodidar, he was paying premium to the jodidar in his individual capacity. The land in Sy.No.116/2 was granted in favour of Munihanumaiah alone by the Inam Deputy Commissioner. Hence, said property is self acquired property of Munihanumaiah. The plaintiff or his father, the joint family had nothing to do with it. It is contended that Munihanumaiah has sold the 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.116/2 in favour of H.Nemichand under sale deed. The sale was a conditional sale. Smt.Kempamma has purchased the suit schedule A and B properties in her individual capacity. The defendant No.4 has executed sale deed in favour of father of defendant Nos.7 to 12 on 22.01.1979 in respect of land in Sy.No.116/2 measuring 20 guntas of Kowdenahalli village. Since the date of purchase, the defendant Nos.7 to 12 and after him the defendant Nos.7 to 12 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff need not be a party to the transaction as he had nothing to do with the property

¶112

¶113

as such, his authorization was also not required. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.

¶114

The defendant Nos.7, 9 to 12 have adopted written statement of defendant No.8.

¶115

The 13^th defendant also filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint as false and contended that only Munihanumaiah was having the lands under Jodidar and paid premium to Jodidar in his individual capacity. The land in Sy.No.116/2 was granted in favour of Munihanumaiah alone by Inam Deputy Commissioner, which is self acquired property of Munihanumaiah. The plaintiff or his father or joint family had nothing to do with the said property. It is further contended that Munihanumaiah has alienated 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.116/2 in favour one H.Nemichand, there is a recital that the sale was conditional sale and Kempamma has purchased the schedule A and B properties in her individual capacity. The 4^th defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of the father of the 13^th defendant on 22.01.1979 in respect of Sy.No.116/2, measuring 12 guntas of Kowdenahalli village. Since the date of purchase the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff need not be a party to the transactions as he had nothing

¶116

¶117

to do with the property and as such, his authorisation was also not required. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶118

The 13^th defendant also filed additional written statement contending that the Sy.No.116/2, totally measuring 0.39 guntas, belonged to his vendor Kempakka, out of 0.39 guntas, the defendant has purchased the 0.19 guntas from his vendor Kempakka for valuable sale consideration under sale deed dated 23.01.1979, remaining 0.20 guntas was purchased in the name of elder brother Muniyappa @ Dodda Muniyappa under the sale deed dated 23.01.1979. Accordingly, since the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the said 0.19 guntas. Accordingly, his name is entered in the revenue records. The plaintiffs are running the real estate business and grabbing lands of innocence by creating documents. The suit is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, suit is bared by law of limitation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶119

The 18^th and 19^th defendants also denied all the averments made in the plaint, as per the contention of the 18^th defendant, the 18^th defendant is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing No.1, ITI Notified area committee, khatha 1120/4/1002/1 situated

¶120

¶121

at Yerenapalya, Ramamurthy Nagar, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring east to west 40+38/2 and north south 40 feet, and the said property was purchased by this defendant from Kempakka on 30.05.1994. In the said sale deed, sons of the 4^th defendant i.e., Lakappa and Mariappa i.e., defendant No.5 and 6 have also signed as witnesses. Originally the land belongs to Nemichand and the same was purchased by defendants vendor Kempamma i.e., the 4^th defendant on 17.06.1975. Thereafter Kempamma formed a layout and sold the property, in which the defendant has purchased the site No.1 from the 4^th defendant. Since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and after getting plan approval she has constructed the house and spending huge amount by raising loan, she is paying taxes and deposited Rs.10,000/- for water connection and residing in the said property.

¶122

The defendant No.19 is also filed written statement contending that the defendant No.19 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of site No.3, khatha No.1624/4/1002/1, situated at Yerenapalya, Ramamurthy Nagar, K.R.Puram Hobli, measuring 30X40 feet and the said property was purchased by the defendant from Kempamma i.e., 4^th defendant on 16.12.1993 for valuable consideration. The defendant No.4 and her son i.e., the defendant

¶123

¶124

Nos.5 and 6 have also signed the sale deed. And later he has obtained the khatha in his name and put up the construction of ground and 1^st floor by spending huge amount and by paying taxes etc., and the defendant is the bonafide purchasers of the property. The plaintiff intentionally not impleaded all the parties to the suit. The court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶125

The defendant No.20 also filed written statement taking similar contention as above said defendants. It is contended that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the site No.2(A) khatha No.120/5/100/2 situated at Kowdenahalli village, K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring east to west 20 ft., north to south 40 ft., totally measuring 800 sq.ft., he has purchased the property from Kempamma on 20.01.2003. Accordingly, his name has been entered in the concerned revenue records. After getting approval from the concerned office, put up construction and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶126

The defendant No.22 also filed written statement by denying the plaint averments as false. According to the defendant No.22 the land originally belongs to one Booragappa who had three

¶127

¶128

sons namely Munishamappa, Munivenkatappa and Munihanumaiah. Munishamappa is the father of the defendant No.22 and he is seeking 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has not made the children of Munihanumaiah, but the children of Munishamappa had been suppressed by them. As per genealogical tree, it is clear that Booragappa had two sons by name Late Munivenkatappa, father of the plaintiff, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the husband of defendant No.1, Muni Hanumaiah, the father of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and husband of defendant No.4. It is further contended that after the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 came into force, the Inam lands were vested with the Government and occupancy rights were granted to Munishamappa, Munivenkatappa and Munihanumaiah. They are cultivating the lands, the said Munishamappa elder son was cultivating the lands and other two other brothers were Government Employees. The lands regranted on behalf of the joint family property in favour. Further, the family of the Munivenkatappa owned immovable property measuring 39 guntas in Sy.No.116/2 (old No.116), 10 guntas in Sy.No.100 (new 100/2) and 3 acres 18 guntas, including 4 guntas of Karab in Sy.No.112/4 of Kowdenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. It is further contended that children of Munishamappa, Munivenkatappa and Munihanumaiah were all in joint possession and enjoyment of the

¶129

¶130

suit schedule property and said Munihanumaiah was the kartha of the joint family. The land measuring 3 acre 18 gutas in Sy.No.112/4, 0-10 guntas in Sy.No.100/2 and 0-30 guntas in Sy.No.116/2 of Kowdenahalli village, was granted by way of occupancy rights in the name of plaintiff and his uncle Munihanumaiah, the husband of the 4^th defendant. Thereafter the same land was repurchased by Munihanumaiah, the husband of 4^th defendant out of the joint family funds on 17.12.1979. At the same time execution of sale deed, the father of the defendant No.22 had not given any consent.

¶131

The defendant No.1 to 6 and father of the plaintiff and his uncle Munihanumaiah had executed alleged sale deed on 28.04.1988 in favour of Rami Reddy, the husband of the 17^th defendant behind the back of the plaintiff. The said sale transaction has been made in favour of the Rami Reddy and it is not in the knowledge of Munishamappa nor his children. Hence sale is not binding on the defendant. In the year 1960, the Munihanumaiah again created the documents in favour of Nemichand in respect of A and B schedule properties. In the said instrument there is a recital that the said instrument was a conditional sale with a rider to repurchase the same. Accordingly, on 17.06.1975, the amount was raised under the said instrument executed in the year 1960 to

¶132

¶133

Nemichand was repaid from the said joint family corpus and A and B schedule properties are purchased by Hindu Undivided Joint Family in the name of the 4^th defendant Kempamma, who was managing the Hindu Undivided Joint Family. In turn the 4^th defendant has executed the sale in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 12 and defendant No.13 on 22.01.1979 are all not within the knowledge of the defendant, those transactions made by the Munihanumaiah without the knowledge of other co-parceners. The plaintiff was not a party to the said transaction so also this defendant.

¶134

It is further contended that the defendant No.1 to 6 and late Munivenkatappa and Munihanumaiah in their lifetime colluded with each other. The plaintiff entitle for 1/2 share in the schedule properties. Munihanumaiah entitled for the remaining 1/2 share in the suit schedule property. Any alienation made by the Munivenkatappa and his 2^nd and 3^rd son are not binding on the plaintiff, suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of defendants and plaintiff. The defendant No.22 being the son of Munishamappa is also entitled for the share.

¶135

The defendant Nos.1 to 6 and said Munivenkatappa and Munihanumaiah got entered their names in the schedule property

¶136

¶137

behind back of the plaintiff. The defendant No.7 to 17 have formed the layout. The defendant Nos. 18 to 21 without any right trying to interfere with the possession of the A schedule property. The suit schedule properties originally Inam lands and Munihanumaiah the uncle of defendant No.22 was managing the affairs of the joint family as a kartha and he was illiterate and he has made some transactions without the knowledge of this defendant, there was no partition in the family and this defendant No.22 is in possession and enjoyment of 4 guntas of land in the total extent of 12 guntas in Sy.No.100/2. He also entitled for the share in Sy.No.116/2 and Sy.No.112/4. Hence, prayed for decree the suit.

¶138

The defendant Nos.23 to 27 have filed written statement

¶139

by admitting the claim of the plaintiff according to them plaintiff and other defendants by colluding each other executing the certain sale deeds in favour of other defendants and the said sale deeds are not binding on them. These defendants are daughters of Munivenkatappa and defendant No.1 and sister of the plaintiff and other defendants are entitled for equal share in all suit schedule properties. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit by allotting their shares.

¶140

¶141

Based upon the pleadings the Trial Court has framed the

¶142

following issues which are as under;

¶143

Issues

¶144

1) Whether the LRs of plaintiff prove the relationship pleaded by them?

¶145

2) Whether the LRs of plaintiff prove that registered Sale Deed dt.27.04.1988 and two sale deeds dt.22.01.1979 are not binding on them?

¶146

3) Whether the LRs of plaintiff proves that suit properties are joint family properties of LRs of plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 6?

¶147

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit properties?

¶148

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction sought for?

¶149

6) Whether the defendants Nos.7 to 12 prove that land in Sy.No.116/2 was granted by Inam D.C to late Munihanumaiah only?

¶150

7) Whether the defendants Nos.7 to 12 prove that registered Sale Deed dt.22.01.1979 to their father by defendant No.4 is valid and lawful?

¶151

8) Whether the defendants Nos.18 to 19 prove that the sale deeds dt.30.05.1994 and 16.12.1993 executed by defendant No.4 to them are valid?

¶152

9) Whether the defendants Nos.18 and 19 prove that they are bonafide purchasers for value?

¶153

10) Whether the defendants Nos.18 and 19 prove that they have constructed on the purchased property and therefore they have equity in their favour?

¶154

11) Whether the defendant No.20 proves the purchased of portion of suit property on 20.01.2003 from defendant No.4?

¶155

12) Whether Court fee paid is insufficient?

¶156

13) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? 14) What Decree or Order?

¶157

¶158

Additional Issues framed on 02.01.2010

¶159

15) Whether the plaintiff proves the identity of suit properties? 16) Whether suit is barred by time?

¶160

Additional issue frame on 12.06.2014

¶161

17) Whether defendants Nos.23 to 27 prove that they are entitled to get 5/8^th share and mesne profit as prayed in written statement?

¶162

To prove the case on behalf of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked 21 documents and the defendants have not lead any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court answered the issue as under;

¶163

Issue No.1Redundant

¶164

Issue No.2In the Negative

¶165

Issue No.3In the Negative

¶166

Issue No.4In the Negative

¶167

Issue No.5In the Negative

¶168

Issue No.6Settled

¶169

Issue No.7Settled

¶170

Issue No.8In the Affirmative

¶171

Issue No.9In the Affirmative

¶172

Issue No.10- In the Affirmative

¶173

¶174

Issue No.11- In the Affirmative

¶175

Issue No.12- In the Affirmative Issue No.13- In the Affirmative

¶176

Additional Issue No.1- Redundant

¶177

Additional Issue No.2- In the Affirmative

¶178

Additional Issue No.3- In the Negative

¶179

Issue No.14- As per Final Order

¶180

Finally, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff appellants are before this court.

¶181

Learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the Trial Court committed error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, even though the defendants have not lead any evidence and produced any documents before the court. Except the denial and taking contention that some of the properties were sold by the defendant No.4 and inturn the purchaser formed the layout and sold to various persons, but they have not proved the contention in the written statement. Such being the case, the question of dismissing the suit does not arise and the defendant Nos.1 to 6 were settled their issues between themselves and

¶182

defendant Nos.7 to 13, out of the court settlement. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff was not intending to prosecute the suit against

¶183

¶184

the defendant Nos.7 to 13, that these defendant Nos.7 to 13 who are the purchasers of the property from the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and the defendant No.22 also given consent for decree, claiming for half share, that was not properly shared to his share, which was not considered by the Trial Court and totally dismissing the suit, does not arises. It is also contended that the village itself is jodi inam village. In view of the commencement of the Inam Abolition Act, the property vested with the State and later it was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father and Munihanumaiah the husband of the defendant No.4, these facts were not in dispute. Subsequently without knowledge of the plaintiff and his father, defendant No.4 sold the property to one Sri.H.Nemichand with conditions that it has to be re-purchased. Thereafter, out of the joint family nucleus the property was re-purchased in the name of defendant No.4/Kempamma and the husband of defendant No.4 sold the property, behind the back of the plaintiff and his father, who have no exclusive right over the property. Therefore, subsequent sale deeds were not binding on the plaintiff. The properties are the joint family property, the plaintiff got the knowledge of the same, only in the year 2005, when he demanded partition of the property it was informed about the sale.

¶185

¶186

The alleged sale deed in favour of the Sri.H.Nemichand only nominal sale and it was re-purchased by the Munihanumaiah, the husband of the defendant No.4, who is the kartha of the family. Subsequently, the defendant No.4 became the kartha of the family and she do not have any independent right over the said property, as it is the joint family property. Therefore, sale deed made by them is not binding on the plaintiff. Though the defendant No.13 claimed that they are bonafide purchaser, but not lead any evidence except the cross examination of DW1.

¶187

The defendant Nos.7 to 13 have settled the issues, out of the court between themselves, the 12 guntas of land have been given up by the plaintiff. Therefore 'B' schedule property was deleted as it was settled between the parties and the finding of the Trial Court holding that 'B' schedule property, is not available for partition, is not correct. The defendant No.16 was ex-parte before the Trial Court. The defendant Nos.14, 16, 17 and 21 are also exparte. The defendant Nos.14 to 17 are the legal heir of the Ramareddy who was allegedly purchased the property from the defendant No.4. Therefore, it is contended that the judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous. Hence, liable to be set aside.

¶188

It is also contended that, though the defendant Nos.8 to 13 and defendant Nos.18 and 19 have filed written statements, but

¶189

¶190

not lead any evidence and no cross examination of PW1 is done. The respondent No.15 appeared and filed the vakalath, but not filed any written statement nor contested and not lead any evidence. When the suit was filed in the year 2005, the RTC stands in the name of Sri.Ramaredyy. There is no conversion of the land for forming layout, by any of the authority. The issue No.2 regarding limitation, the Trial Court answered in the negative. There is no limitation for filing the partition suit, until and unless the contrary is proved, the properties are presumed to be joint family property. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relied upon various judgments.

¶191

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.14 and 17 has also supported the judgment of the Trial Court and contended that the defendant Nos.15 to 17 were exparte in the Trial Court and not contested by filing the written statement. However, it is contended that the land has lost its character, the layout was formed, sites were sold. Therefore, the extent of property is not available. As on the date of filing the suit, the properties were not available. The lands were sold to Sri. H.Nemichand and sites had come up, by GPA holder of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined, they had no personal knowledge regarding transactions held. No property is available for partition. Though

¶192

¶193

suit was filed, but not proceeded against the defendant Nos.1 to 6, they have filed the settlement memo. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

¶194

Learned counsel for respondent No.16 also contended that they are also bonafide purchaser of 'C' Schedule Property which comes under Sy.No.112/4 which was purchased from Sri.Ramareddy. The layout was formed, the sites were sold. Two sites were retained by Sri.Ramareddy. Defendant No.17/mother, had gifted two sites to respondent No.16 the site No.9 and 10 measuring 40 x 60 feet. The plaintiff was not in possession of the property. The Kowdenahalli comes under BBMP limit. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

¶195

It is further contended that the issue No.13 regarding the non-joinder of the necessary parties is not known to the plaintiff. The father of the respondent No.16 has retained two sites. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

¶196

During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos.14 and 17 filed I.A.No.6/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, by producing some documents such as gift deeds dated 17.01.2008 and 27.01.2006 Khatha extracts, tax paid receipts etc, contending that the mother of the defendant Nos.14 and 17 gifted the property

¶197

¶198

i.e, two sites, which was belonging to Sri.Ramareaddy. The suit is barred by limitation. The sale deeds are not in question. In 1988, it was the agriculture land, now the price is escalated. Hence, suit came to be filed. There are buildings which has come up. It is also contended that the documents produced under interlocutory application were not able to be produced in the Trial Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the applications.

¶199

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the point that arises for my considerations are;

¶200

(i) Whether, the appellant/plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6?

¶201

(ii) Whether,defendant proves the land in Sy.No.116/2 was granted by Inam/DC to Munihanumaiah only, who was husband of defendant No.4?

¶202

(iii) Whether the plaintiff further proves the Munihanumaiah purchased the property under the joint family nucleus after selling to Nemichand with a conditional sale?

¶203

(iv) Whether the defendant Nos.7 to 13 proves that the sale deed dated 22.1.1979 was executed to their father by the defendant No.4 is valid and unlawful?

¶204

( v) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed made by the defendant no.4 in favour of the defendant No.16 and in turn selling these

¶205

¶206

properties to various persons are not binding on the plaintiff?

¶207

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the share as claimed in the suit?

¶208

(vii) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

¶209

(viii) Whether the defendant Nos.23 and 27 are entitled to get 5/8^th share and mesne profit as prayed in the written statement?

¶210

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

¶211

On perusal of the records, it reveals that the plaintiff is claiming the right over the schedule properties based upon the grant order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inam in favour of uncle of the plaintiff Munihanumaiah, who is the husband of the 4^th defendant, the father of the plaintiff and in the name of the plaintiff. The said grant was jointly owned and cultivated by the plaintiff. Munihanumaiah, the husband of defendant No.4, said to be sold the schedule property to one Nemichand in the year 1960 with a condition that the land should be repurchased. Accordingly, out of the joint family fund, the said land has been repurchased by Munihanumaiah in the name of the 4^th defendant, and the defendant No.4 does not have independent right over the joint family property. When the plaintiff was minor, the father of the

¶212

¶213

plaintiff, who was also the brother of Munihanumaiah, sold the property to the third parties without providing any share to the plaintiff. The land has been granted in favour of the joint family, thereby, the plaintiff and his father will get half share in the schedule properties and the husband of defendant No.4 Munihanumaiah will also get half share in the schedule properties.

¶214

To prove the aforesaid contention, the GPA holder of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he got marked 21 documents. Ex.P.1 is the genealogical tree of the plaintiff showing the name of his uncle Munihanumaiah, leaving behind the legal heirs and Ex.P.1 also shows the name of the father of the plaintiff Munivenkatappa who died leaving behind three children i.e. Venkatashama, Muniyappa and Muniyappa. Ex.P.2 is the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Case No.134/1960-61 for having granted the occupancy right in respect of Sy. Nos.116 and 100. Ex.P.3 is the endorsement issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. Ex.P.4 index of lands which refers the name of the plaintiff, plaintiff's father and Munihanuma, the husband of the 4^th defendant in respect of the schedule properties. Ex.P.5 is the record of rights in the name of Muniya. Ex.P.5 also reveals the names of Munihanuma-husband of defendant No.4, the father of the plaintiff Munivenkatappa, who is

¶215

¶216

also representing the minor plaintiff, and also the name of the plaintiff in respect of Sy. No.112/4. This document was effected 20.08.1958 in Re. No.2027, M.R. No.158/1962-63 and M.R. No.60/1962-63. These documents reveal that under the mutation register Nos.168/62 and 162/162 and the lands were shown in the names of three persons i.e. Munihanuma, Venkatashama, the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff himself. Ex.P.6 once again index of lands showing the name of Munihanuma and Venkatashama, and Munihanuma also represented the Munishama. Ex.P.7-RTC stands in the name of Munishamappa and Kukkala Munishamappa, where it is categorically mentioned that in respect of Sy. No.112/4, the name of the father of the plaintiff is shown as Venkatashamy and Munivenkatappa as guardian and Munihanuma. Ex.P.8 is in respect of record of rights for the year 1989-90 which shows the name of defendant No.4. Ex.P.9 is the record of rights once again shows the name of Muniyappa and defendant No.4-Kempamma@Kempakka, after the repurchase of the land by the husband of defendant No.4 in the name of defendant No.4. These documents would show the plaintiff's predecessor in title were his father Munishamappa and his uncle Munihanuma, who jointly owned the land which is the joint family property. Subsequently, in the year 1960, the husband of the 4^th defendant sold the property to one Nemichand with a condition of repurchasing the same. Ex.P.17 is the sale deed dated

¶217

¶218

27.10.1960 where the conditional sale deed was executed by Munihanumappa and the said sale deed also reveals that the property of the plaintiff's father was situated on the southern side. Subsequently, the said land has been repurchased in the name of the 4^th defendant. Exs.P.13 to 15 reveals that the 4^th defendant sold the properties in Sy. Nos.112/4 and 116/2 to one Muniyappa. Under Ex.P.16, the 4^th defendant has sold Sy.No.116/2 measuring 39 guntas to defendant Nos.7 to 12 and 13. Ex.P.18 is the order dated 13.07.1960 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams granting the land in Sy. Nos.116 and 100 on the request made by the husband of defendant No.4. Ex.P.19 is the case No.113 dated 13.07.1960 where the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams granted occupancy right in favour of Muniswamy @ Munivenkata, the father of the plaintiff, in respect of Sy.No.116/2 and the endorsement was also issued on 18.10.1960. Ex.P.20 is another order of Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in the name of the grand father of the plaintiff Muniswamy. The endorsement is also produced in respect of Sy. No.116. Ex.P.21 is GPA executed by the family members in favour of P.W.1 Kumar, who was representing them in the Court.

¶219

¶220

On perusal of these documents, they show that the schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff's father Munivenkatappa, Muniswamappa and his uncle Munihanumaiah (the husband of the 4^th defendant). Though it was sold by Munihanumaiah to a third person Nemichand under Ex.P.17 in the year 1960, but, subsequently, it was repurchased in the name of the 4^th defendant. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff's father and his uncle Munihanumaiah were the joint family members and after the death of Munihanumaiah, the 4^th defendant became the kartha of the family and she has sold the property along with defendant Nos.1 to 3, where the plaintiff Venkataswamy was the minor and whose name appeared in the RTCs and along with his father Venkataswamy and his uncle Munihanumaiah, during the years 1966-67, 1967-68. Thereafter, after selling the property by the husband of the 4^th defendant and repurchasing the same, the name of the 4^th defendant appeared in the RTC, which clearly reveals that the plaintiff was not the party to the sale deed executed by the plaintiff's father or his uncle or the 4^th defendant. Therefore, the sale deed executed by them in favour of the third parties against the minor interest of the plaintiff is not permissible under the law.

¶221

¶222

Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBRAYA

¶223

M.N. Vs. VITTALA M.N. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2016 SC

¶224

3236 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that one of the items of joint family property which was granted to the benefit of the family, in a suit for partition between the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant, the parties would be entitled for 1/5^th share. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the trial Court cannot ignore the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Here, in this case, the plaintiff has produced the various documents in his favour and the same was not properly considered by the trial Court.

¶225

In another case, in the case of N. PADMAMMA AND OTHERS VS. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS reported

¶226

in ( 2015) 1 SCC 417 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the grant of occupancy right in respect of inam land in favour of son cannot be treated to be in his individual capacity to the exclusion of other members of the family so as to deny them their share in such property. Here, in this case, the tenancy right has been granted in favour of Munihanumaiah, the husband of defendant No.4, and subsequently, all the members of the family including the plaintiff's name was mentioned in the RTC. Such being the case, excluding

¶227

¶228

the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no right to alienate the property.

¶229

In another judgment, in the case of NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. Vs. NARESHKUMAR

¶230

BADRIKUMAR JAGAD AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2012 SC 264 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the pleadings and particulars are necessary to enable the Court to decide the rights of the parties in trial. In another judgment, in the case of P LAKSHMI REDDY Vs. L LAKSHMI REDDY reported in AIR 1957 SC 314 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that possession of coheirs when adverse to other co-heirs burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. It is also stated that, in order to establish adverse possession of one-co-heir as against another, it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one coheir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir, not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus of his own part in

¶231

¶232

derogation of the other co-heir title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. Here, in this case, the plaintiff, plaintiff's father and his uncle were all co-sharers of the property and jointly enjoyed the property in question. But, without the consent of the plaintiff, the property has been sold by defendant Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 either to defendant Nos.7 to 13 and defendant No.17 is not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff and his father are entitled for 1/2 share in the schedule 'A' as well as in the schedule 'C' property.

¶233

Therefore, the sale deed of the 4^th defendant or defendant Nos.1 to 4 to the third parties i.e. defendant Nos.7 to 13 or 14 and 17 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the schedule properties are the joint family of the plaintiff along with his uncle and his father and they are in the joint possession until it was sold to Nemichand and repurchased in the name of the 4^th defendant, out of the joint family nucleus. Though the defendants have filed written statement, but none of the defendants have entered into witness box or lead any evidence by producing any documents in the trial Court, except cross examination. Even in the written

¶234

¶235

statement, the defendants have stated that the plaintiff is not the necessary party, etc. When the property is the joint family property and when they are in the joint possession, therefore, without consent of the plaintiff, who was the minor at that time, the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 is not binding on him. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the consent of the plaintiff is not required, cannot be acceptable.

¶236

It is an admitted fact that the lands are the inam lands and the occupancy right has been granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. During the pendency, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 have settled their issues with defendant Nos.7 to 13. Therefore, they deleted the Sy. No.116/2 in the schedule items as against defendant Nos.7 to 13 and 17. None of the other defendants have contested the matter. Such being the case, the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was successful in proving that the properties are the joint family properties which were granted in favour of all the three family members. The defendants have failed to prove that the land was granted only to Munihanumaiah, the husband of 4^th defendant and also failed to prove that the sale deed made by the husband of the 4^th defendant was the conditional sale deed and repurchased in the name of the 4^th defendant. Therefore,

¶237

¶238

the sale deed made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 to the other defendants is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, I answer point Nos.1, 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Point No.4 does not require for consideration since the plaintiff and defendant Nos.7 to 13 have already settled the issue between them and deleted the portion of schedule B property.

¶239

The learned counsel for defendant/respondent Nos.14 and 17 filed an I.A. under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC along with the documents where the defendants have produced the copy of the gift deed executed by defendant No.14 in favour of Suguna in respect of site No.11 and site No.26. Another document executed by defendant No.17-Gowramma, wife of one Ramareddy who was said to be the GPA holder, in favour of defendant No.14 in respect of site No.11. In turn, the said Sugunamma executed another gift deed in favour of Asha Reddy daughter of defendant No.14. There is no reference available in the gift deed of defendant No.17-Gowramma executed in favour of defendant No.14- Sugunamma, as to how the property vested in their hands in order to execute the gift deed. She has stated that the property was purchased on 28.04.1988. Again the said defendant No.17- Gowramma executed one more gift deed in favour of Asha Reddy on 26.06.2019 in respect of site Nos.6 to 9. All these documents were

¶240

¶241

created by defendant Nos.14 and 17 during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court. Subsequently, they said to be paid taxes, E.C. was also produced. But, the fact remains that the defendant Nos.14 and 17 did not lead any evidence or produced any documents before the trial Court. These documents, which were created, were produced during the pendency of this appeal as well as the pendency of the suit. Therefore, there is no value attached to these documents as they were created subsequent to the pendency of the suit. In view of not leading any evidence before the trial Court, these documents cannot be acceptable. When there is no pleading and there is no evidence in respect of the gift deed in the trial Court, these documents will not be helpful to the case of respondent Nos.14 and 17.

¶242

In view of the reasoning stated above, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The trial Court has totally ignored that the properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiff was the minor at the time of the grant, and without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have alienated the properties to the third parties, which is against the minor's interest. Therefore, the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff.

¶243

¶244

During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the plaintiff have settled the dispute between them with defendant Nos.7 to 13, who are the purchasers of the schedule 'B' property. Therefore, in the remaining property, the plaintiff and his father's family are entitled for half share and Munihanumaiah's family i.e. Defendant No.4's family is entitled for half share.

¶245

As regards to the claim of the defendant Nos.23 to 27, they also belong to the family of the plaintiff and they have to workout their share with the plaintiff and his father's half share in the schedule property in the final decree proceedings. Therefore, the contention of defendant Nos.18, 19 and 20 that their sale deed was valid sale deed, cannot be acceptable. Further, the arguments of learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 and 17 are also not acceptable. Further, the I.A. filed by respondent No.14 and 17 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC will not be helpful to their case. Therefore, the trial Court passed a cryptic order, not discussed properly in respect of the facts and law, and passed the impugned judgment by dismissing the suit, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶246