The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal against a first appellate decree that dismissed a partition suit. The appellant failed to show a substantial question of law meriting interference under Section 100 CPC.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed; the first appellate decree is confirmed; the trial court judgment is dismissed.
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:32706 RSA No. 1392 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1392 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
M. ANURADHA W/O SRI K L RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.71/1A KAIKANDARA HALLI OPP. SWARNAMUKHI HOSPITAL CARMALARAM POST BANGALORE-560035.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VASUDEVA IYENGAR K.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENTS NO. 1TO 4 ARE R/AT DODDAKARNAHALLI VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560036.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANESH T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2018 PASSED IN R.A. NO.58 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.1024 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the
judgment and decree dated 15.09.2018 passed in RA No.58 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, allowing the
appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed in OS No.1024 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
the granddaughter of late Bhava Reddy and daughter of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff along with defendant Nos.1 to 4 constitute the joint family and suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. Such being the case, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5 as per registered Sale Deed dated 27.07.2005 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed OS No.1024 of
NC: 2024:KHC:32706 RSA No. 1392 of 2019
2007, seeking relief of partition and declaration in respect of the suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:32706 RSA No. 1392 of 2019
Vishwanath R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
NC: 2024:KHC:32706 RSA No. 1392 of 2019
as such, sought for dismissal of the appeal. The defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 fail to appear before the Trial Court.
both the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the both the courts below. It is not in dispute with regard to relationship between the parties and Genealogical Tree of the parties is as follows:
| dAiÀĪÀÄä (55 ªÀµÀð) «ªÁ»vÉ, ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁ¸À |
¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä (54 ªÀµÀð) «ªÁ»vÉ, ¨ÉÃgÉ HgÀ°èªÁ¸À ¨ÁªÁ gÉrØ (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä (¥À) ºÉAqÀw |
©. ªÀÄĤgÉrØ(52 ªÀµÀð) ¨ÁUÀªÀÄä (47ªÀµÀð) JA. ºÀjñÀ (26 ªÀµÀð) JA. ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ (23 ªÀµÀð) C£ÀÄgÁzsÀ JA.(19ªÀµÀð) - «ªÁ»vÉ |
|---|
defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that the Sale Deed 27.07.2005 has been executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with plaintiff, in favour of the defendant No.5, and received the sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. In this regard, perusal of the Sale Deed would indicate that, the age of the plaintiff was 18 years and she has signed the Sale Deed dated 27.07.2005 (Ex.P4). At paragraph 7 of the Sale Deed it is stated that, the vendors have decided to sell the suit schedule property for their legal necessity and family welfare, coupled with meeting educational expenditure of the children and for the benefit of plaintiff's and to invest the sale consideration in more beneficial manner that may be received by the vendors therein and in that view of the matter, the Trial Court without considering the fact that, the registered Sale Deed dated 27.07.2005 has been executed after receipt of sale consideration by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and plaintiff collectively and therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and same has been rectified by the First
Appellate Court having thoroughly re-appreciated the material on record. Though the plaintiff has produced the SSLC marks card as per Ex.P5, to indicate the date of birth as 16.08.1987 and as she attained the majority in the year 2005 and that apart as the registered Sale Deed is executed on 27.07.2005, wherein, the recitals in the Sale Deed would indicate that, the sale of the property is made for the benefit of family as per paragraph 7 of the Sale Deed and in that view of the matter, the First Appellate Court after considering the material on record in the right perspective rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
ORDER
i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii) Judgment and decree dated 15.09.2018 passed in RA No.58 of 2016 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
iii) The judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed in OS No.1024 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff has established a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to succeed in the regular second appeal.
Whether the sale of joint family property was legal despite the plaintiff's claim of lack of consent while she was a minor.
Whether the first appellate court rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court by dismissing the partition suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Anuradha
Sri. Muni Reddy
Smt. M. Bhagyamma
Sri. M. Harish
Sri. M. Suresh
Sri. M. Mallaveeriah
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
