Dismissed

Siddaramaiah Since Dead Byhis Lrs Smt Shivarudramma v. Revanna

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024RSA/1060/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this regular second appeal filed by legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs challenging a partition suit decision. The court upheld the lower courts' finding that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of a joint family nucleus, thereby rejecting claims that the properties were ancestral.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

Siddaramaiah Since Dead Byhis Lrs Smt Shivarudramma Vs Revanna — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2022 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SIDDARAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BYHIS LRS SMT

¶8

SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA W/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶9

REVANASIDDAPPA S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶10

SHIVARUDRAIAH S/O LATE SIDDARAIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SIDDALINGASWAMY S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶13

BASAMMA D/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶14

S SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILLAGE

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶17

MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI POST RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶18

KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶19

SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶20

S APPAJI GOWDA S/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶21

9. CHANDRASHEKAR

¶22

S/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶23

SUJATHA

¶24

W/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶25

RENUKAMMA

¶26

W/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶27

APPELLANTS 7 TO 11 ARE

¶28

R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶29

12. SHIVANNA

¶30

S/O LATE SIDDAPPAA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶32

13. MALLIKARJUNAIAH

¶33

S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT SANGABASAVANADODDI VILALGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 562 128.

¶34

…APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R.,ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

REVANNA

¶38

S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILLAGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶39

T. THIMMAIAH

¶40

S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT VADERHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶41

GURUSIDDAMMA

¶42

W/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/T VITALANEHALLI VIILLAGE VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMNAGARA DISTRICT.

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶44

4. KAMAKSHAMMA

¶45

W/O LATE HONNAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶46

R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶47

SIDDAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶48

R/AT VIDHOOTIKERE VILLAGE KALINACHA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISRICT.

¶49

VEERABHADRAIAH

¶50

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶51

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶52

R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE

¶53

MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶54

SMT BHADRAKALAMMA W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶55

S V PUTTARUDRAIAH W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶56

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶57

SMT NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶58

10. CHANNAVEERADEVARU W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH

¶59

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶60

KANTHAMMA W/O LT VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶61

RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 11 ARE

¶62

R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶63

…RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G. ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶65

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.40/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED IN OS No.219/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA.

¶66

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶67

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶70

JUDGMENT

¶71

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.219/2008 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Ramanagara (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 13.04.2022 passed in R.A.No.40/2019 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

¶72

The above suit is filed by the original plaintiffsSiddaramaiah, Kadapuraiah @ Siddaiah as plaintiff No.2, Shivanna as plaintiff No.3 and Mallikarjunaiah as plaintiff No.4 all being sons of one Late.Siddappa against other family members for the relief of partition and separate possession of their alleged 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties.

¶73

It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the brothers. They are the sons of one Sidappa and Basamma. That both Siddappa and Bassamma are dead. That their father late Sidappa possessed ancestral joint family properties and he was very ignorant and innocent. The defendant No.1 being an educated person and well versed with

¶74

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶75

the worldly affairs, was managing the affairs of the family. During the life time of their father Siddappa, all of them were residing as a Joint Family. During that time, the defendant No.1 purchased the properties bearing Sy.No.83/3, measuring 23 guntas and the property bearing Sy.No.133/1 measuring 45X90 feet in his name for and on behalf of the joint family. It is contended that defendant No.1 had no independent income except the proceeds of the joint family. That due to discord in the joint family, plaintiffs demanded for partition, which was declined constraining them to file the present suit.

¶76

Though originally suit was filed by defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, subsequently defendant Nos.3 to 6 were impleaded. Though, summons were served defendant Nos.3 and 5 did not appear before the Trial Court and were placed exparte. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 filed their separate written statement.

¶77

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement though admitted their relationship specifically denied the plaint averments. It is contended that;

¶78

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶79

(a). Only suit item No.4 of the suit schedule properties was an ancestral property and even the said property was divided amongst the family members during the life time of their father Siddappa. That all the parties are living separately in different portions of item No.4 of the suit schedule properties.

¶80

(b). It is contended that item No.3 did not exist, however the boundaries given to item No.3 refers to Sy.No.133/1 which measures East to West 30 yards and North to South 60 yards, which is the self acquired property of this defendant No.1.

¶81

(c). It is contended that Late Siddappa their father did not possesses any landed properties and he was having one house property. The defendant No.1 left the home and went to Mysuru, where he was working under one Professor Sri.Thotappa for about 11 years and saved some money, out of which, in the first instance he purchased the land measuring East to West 30 yards and North to South 60 yards in Sy.No.133/1 of Kethohalli Village under registered deed of sale dated 01.02.1971 from Sri.B.M.Siddappa. That thereafter, he had obtained mortgage of land bearing Sy.No.148/7 measuring

¶82

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶83

1 acre 24 guntas and 83/3 measuring 23 guntas of Kethohalli Village through registered deed of mortgage dated 27.11.1972 from Sri.K.V.Shilpacharya. Who later sold the said lands in favour of defendant No.1 through registered deed of sale dated 16.04.1974, as he was unable to redeem the mortgage.

¶84

(d). The defendant No.1 being in need of money, sold the land in Sy.No.133/1, measuring East to West 30 yards and North to South 60 yards in favour of one Sri.Gangamadaiah in terms of registered deed of sale dated 15.03.1971. Which was repurchased by defendant No.1 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 27.04.1973. It is contended that, due to oversight the survey number was wrongly mentioned as 130/1 instead of 133/1 in the said deed of sale, though the extent and boundaries were mentioned correctly. As such, a registered rectification deed dated 13.02.2007 was executed for rectifying the survey number as 133/1. That the defendant No.1 borrowed the money from one Vazeer Ahmed Nawab Jan in terms of registered deed of Hypothecation dated 16.05.1975, against the security of lands in Sy.No.148/7, 83/3, which he has cleared and discharged the said loan.

¶85

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶86

(e). Pursuant to the sale, katha of the said properties, except Sy.No. 133/1 are made out in the name of defendant No.1. The land in Sy.No. 133/1 is within the gramatana limit and katha has not been made out yet. However, defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession of the said land along with other properties in his own right as absolute owner.

¶87

(g). That the defendant No.1 has sold land measuring 01 acre 20.3/4 guntas in Sy. No. 148/7 in favour of defendant No.2 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 21.06.2007 and the defendant No.2 has been in possession of the same. That defendant No.1 had further sold the land bearing Sy.No.83/3, measuring 0.23 guntas in favour of Veerabhadralah. The defendant No.1 had borrowed the money during the relevant time, so as to purchase the lands and those loans has been cleared. Thus, all the properties mentioned above are all self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and there was no contribution of any nature, whatsoever from any members of the family, much less the plaintiffs. Hence, sought for dismiss of the suit

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶90

Defendant No.2 in his written statement contended that defendant No.1 had offered to sell the land measuring 1 acre 23 guntas in Sy.No. 148/7 in his favour. That after verifying the records, he purchased the same in terms of registered deed of sale dated 21.06.2007 and he has been in possession of the said property as a bonafide purchaser. Similar in the written statement is filed by the defendant No.6, who had purchased 23 guntas of land in Sy.No. 83/3 .

¶91

Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶92

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove the suit item No.3 and 4 are ancestral joint family properties and item No.1 and 2 have been purchased out of joint family income in the name of 1st defendant ?

¶93

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove themselves and defendants are in joint possession of suit schedule properties?

¶94

3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves except 4th item other properties are his self acquired?

¶95

4. Whether he proves item No.4 is divided already?

¶96

5. Whether 1^st and 2^nd defendant prove 1^st defendant having absolute right along with his wife and children sold item No.2 in favour of defendant No.2?

¶97

6. Whether defendant No.2 proves he is bonafide purchaser of the item No.2?

¶98

7. Whether both defendant prove defendant No.2 is in possession of Item No.2 as absolute owner?

¶99

8. Whether they prove the court fee paid is insufficient ?

¶100

12 -

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶102

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought?

¶103

10. What Order or Decree?"

¶104

ADDITIONAL ISSUE

¶105

"1. Whether the defendant No.6 prove that he is the bonafide purchaser of item No. 1 of suit schedule property?"

¶106

The plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW.1 and yet one

¶107

witnesses as PW.2. The Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 are the documents marked on the side of plaintiffs. The defendants 1, 6 and 2 got examined as DW.1, 2 and 6 and yet three witnesses as DW.3 to 5. The Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.77 are the documents marked on the side of contesting defendants.

¶108

The plaintiff No.3 examined himself as PW.1 and one additional witness has been examined in his favour as PW.2 and exhibited 11 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. In order to prove their defence, defendant Nos.1, 6 and 2 examined themselves as DW.1, DW.2 and DW.6 respectively. three additional witnesses have been examined in favour of the defendants as DW.3, DW.4 and DW.5 and exhibited 77 documents. On appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative, issue Nos.2, 8

¶109

13 -

¶110

NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶111

and 9 in the negative and issue Nos.3 to 7 and additional issue

¶112

No.1 in the affirmative and consequently dismissed the suit.

¶113

During the pendency of the suit original plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 passed away and their legal representatives were brought on record. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the Legal representatives of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 filed the appeal in R.A.No.40/2019 before the First Appellate Court. Considering the grounds urged the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:

¶114

"1. Do the appellants for the reasons assigned in the grounds of appeal prove and establish that the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in a proper manner and therefore that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this court of appeal and that the original suit be decreed as prayed for?

¶115

2) What order?"

¶116

On re-appreciation of the evidences, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same appellant is before this Court.

¶117

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶118

Sri.Anandeeswara D.R, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal submitted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have failed to consider the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff with regard to the existence of the joint family. He submits that once the joint family was in place, a presumption ought to have drawn with regard to existence of a joint family properties. He submits that defendant No.1 himself had admitted that the item No.4 of suit schedule properties is a joint family property. As such, further presumption ought to have been drawn that other items of suit schedule properties have been purchased for and on behalf of the joint family in the name of defendant No.1. He submits that of all the family members, defendant No.1 was educated and was managing the affairs of the family, therefore the sale deeds were executed in his favour which according to him Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not appreciated. Thus, he submits that same gives raise to substantial question of law warranting consideration at the hands of this Court.

¶119

Heard. Perused the records.

¶120

15 -

¶121

NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶122

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of the pleadings and evidence led in by the parties. The categoric finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is that plaintiffs except pleading that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, have not placed any material on record as to the source/nucleus of the joint family property which enabled purchase of the said properties. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also taken note of the fact that, though the terms 'ancestral properties', 'joint family properties' have been elaborately used by the plaintiffs, they have not specifically mentioned as to which of the items of the suit properties are the joint family/ancestral properties. Going through the material evidence placed by the defendant No.1 with regard to he acquiring the property, except item No.4, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that in the absence of plaintiffs providing any material evidence with regard to existence of the joint family property as nucleus which was capable enough for purchasing the properties by the defendant No.1, declined to accept the case of the plaintiff of the properties being the joint family properties. As regard the suit item No.4 is concerned, even

¶123

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:13351 RSA No. 1060 of 2022

¶124

according to the defendant No.1, admittedly it was a house property and the same had been divided during the lifetime of late Siddappa their father and that all the members of the joint family are residing in their respective separate shares. Which factor has not been disputed by the plaintiff. Thus in the absence of the material evidence with regard to existence of the ancestral/joint family properties produced by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit for partition as sought for by the plaintiffs.

¶125

Thus, no irregularity or illegality can be found with the said reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal.

¶126

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶127

Sd/JUDGE

¶128

Siddaramaiah Since Dead Byhis Lrs Smt Shivarudramma v. Revanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddaramaiah Since Dead Byhis Lrs Smt Shivarudramma v. Revanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Honnamma Vs Smt Seetha Anchan

Sri Venkataswamy Vs Smt Hanumakka

Shri Chakkalarappa, Vs Smt Ashwathmma

P M Hemanth Kumar Vs Smt Shantha Murthy

Smt Nagaveni Vs Late Gurumoorthy Chaithra

Smt Puttamadamma Vs Lingaiah @ Thammana Since Dead by His Lrs Mallajamma