Second appeal and cross-objection in a partition suit concerning a 1977 gift deed. The court upheld the finding that item No.7 was not covered by the gift deed and hence partible, and that a gift cannot be unilaterally revoked without approaching the court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:28352 RSA No. 1201 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 2 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2019 (PAR) C/W
RSA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2 OF 2022
IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
(BY SRI MURALI BABU M., ADVOCATE)
R/O. HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 13 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
NC: 2024:KHC:28352 RSA No. 1201 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 2 of 2022
THE RESPONDENS NO.14 TO 18 ARE R/AT H. CROSS, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJEEV B.C. AND SRI N.BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATES FOR R1; R2 TO R13 SERVED; R20 AND R21 SERVED; NOTICE TO R19 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.09.2023; NOTICE TO R14 TO R18 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 01.12.2023)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO.7 OF THE SUIT PROPERTY AND CONFIRMING REST OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 02.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.271/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA.
IN RSA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
…CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI N.BYREGOWDA & SRI RAJEEV B.C., ADVOCATES)
AND:
HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 13 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
S/O. LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENS NO.14 TO 18 ARE R/AT H. CROSS, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.
S/O. LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY, SULIBELE VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA CROB IN RSA NO.1201/2019 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 22 AND ORDER 42 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.271/2007 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA.
THIS RSA AND RSA CROB COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
plaintiff that the alleged gift deed dated 26.04.1977 is revoked by donee on 17.05.1977 and hence all the parties are entitled for the relief of partition. The defendants have appeared and filed written statement contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also the contention that there was a gift deed dated 26.04.1977 and in terms of the said gift deed, all the revenue entries are made in favour of the beneficiary of the gift deed. The plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the property.
filed by the plaintiff in R.A questioning the dismissal of the suit in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 and item Nos.6 to 8 and
so also in respect of item No.7. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, accepted the reasoning given by the Trial Court with regard to the gift deed and also the revocation of gift deed. The First Appellate Court confirmed the same and reversed in respect of item No.7 is concerned in coming to the conclusion that in the said gift deed, item No.7 was not included and if really intended to gift the property in respect of item No.7 also, the same has been mentioned in the gift deed itself. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in declining to grant the relief in respect of item No.7
and allowed the appeal in respect of item No.7 and dismissed the appeal in respect of other items in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, both the defendant as well as the plaintiff have filed this appeal and cross objections.
that granting of relief of partition in respect of item No.7 is also erroneous and observation made by the First
NC: 2024:KHC:28352 RSA No. 1201 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 2 of 2022
Appellate Court is also not based on the material available on record and committed an error in coming to the conclusion that item No.7 also the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the property.
8. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also
the counsel for respondent/cross objector and also on perusal of the material on record, the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 while reversing the finding of the Trial Court taken note of the fact that in the gift deed, item No.7 was not included. Though appellant’s counsel contend that the same is not part and parcel of the property of the family and the property belongs to his
uncle Dyavappa and they gave the property in their favour in favour of the defendant. In order to substantiate their contention, no document is placed before the Court and no any documentary evidence to show that the property was given in favour of the appellant. When such being the case, when the First Appellate Court in detail discussed in paragraph No.15 of the judgment with regard to the contentions of the respective counsels and rightly comes to the conclusion that item No.7 is also amenable to the partition in view of non mentioning the same in the gift deed.
unilaterally revoked the same. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion in respect of revocation of gift deed also and the same is also in terms of the settled law. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law in R.S.A.No.1201/2019 as well as in R.S.A.CROB.No.2/2022 and hence not a case for invoking Section 100 of CPC.
ORDER
i) Both R.S.A.No.1201/2019 and also
R.S.A.CROB.No.2/2022 are dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeals, I.As., if any
do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of in both the appeals.
Sd/JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in granting partition of item No.7 as it was not included in the gift deed?
Whether the gift deed dated 26.04.1977 could be unilaterally revoked by the donor without approaching the Court?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Pillachannamma W/o. Yennangur Muniyappa
Smt. Sakamma W/o. Late Ramappa
Smt. Rathnamma W/o. Pillamuniyappa
Smt. Pillachannamma W/o. Byrappa
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
