Dismissed

Smt. Lalithamma v. Smt. Suvarna

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024RSA/1417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal regarding partition and possession of suit properties, the Karnataka High Court upheld the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The Bench held that the appeal was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs failed to file the suit within three years of attaining majority under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. The sale deeds executed by the legal representatives of the origin

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed; the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are confirmed.

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Smt. Suvarna — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1417 OF 2021 (PAR/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O. RANGANATHA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, VINAYAKANAGARA, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228.

¶9

YOGANANDA S/O. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MANAGER, R/O. RANGAYANA, ARAVINDANAGARA, MYSORE-570 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by R DEEPA

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

YOGAMURTHY S/O. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, IDIGARA COLONY, LAXMINAGARA, 4^TH CROSS, ARASIKERE TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 144.

¶13

SMT. GEETHA W/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MARUTHINAGARA, ARSIKERE TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 144.

¶14

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWARA S. SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRANEETH G.N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. SUVARNA W/O. LATE RAMAIAH, DEAD BY HER LRS.,

¶18

K. R. CHANNAKESHAVA, S/O. LATE K. R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT B. H. ROAD, NEAR KLV CIRCLE, KADUR TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶19

K. R. LATHAKUMARI D/O. LATE K. R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT B. H. ROAD, NEAR KLV CIRCLE, KADUR TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶20

K. R. JYOTHI D/O. LATE K. R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT B. H. ROAD, NEAR KLV CIRCLE, KADUR TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶21

K. R. KUMAR S/O. LATE K. R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT B. H. ROAD, NEAR KLV CIRCLE, KADUR TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶22

BANDARI SOMASHEKAR S/O. HONNAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶24

RAMESH S/O. LATE BANDARI SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.V. COLONY, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶25

MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE BANDARI SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.V. COLONY, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶26

PRADEEPA S/O. LATE BANDARI SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.V. COLONY, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶27

HULUBINGI KRISHNAPPA S/O. HULUBINGI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT SOMESHWARA NILAYA, LAXMISHANAGARA, KADUR TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶28

D. GANGAPPA S/O. S. BABANNA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, SUBASH NAGARA, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.30/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVL JUDGE, KADUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶32

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.297/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC., KADUR.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

This regular second appeal is filed by the appellants

¶37

challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2020 passed in R.A.No.30/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadur and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 29.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.297/2010 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur.

¶38

For convenience, the parties are referred to according to their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs, and the respondents are the defendants.

¶39

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶41

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for

¶42

partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and also sought a declaration that the sale deeds executed by deceased Smt.Gowramma and deceased Ramaiah in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8 are not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs, Gowramma is the daughter of one Rangamma and Manki Chikkanna Advanna of Kadur Town. At the age of 10 years, the said Gowramma was married to one Ramalingappa, and both were living in Kadur Town. Ramalingappa died long back, and Ramalingappa and Gowramma had three children; Ramaiah, Rangamma and Lalithamma. Ramaiah died on 05.08.1996, and Rangamma died on 20.02.1980. The daughter of Gowramma by the name Lalithamma is plaintiff No.1, and the daughter of Gowramma by the name of Rangamma was married to one Doddaiah, who is also no more. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Rangamma, who is the daughter of Gowramma, defendant No.1 is the wife and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of Ramaiah.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶44

Defendants Nos.6 to 8 are the purchasers of items Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the members of the Hindu undivided family, and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. No partition affected between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. Hence, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect partition, but the defendants refused. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession.

¶45

Defendant No.4 filed the written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.4. Defendant No.4, in the written statement, admitted the relationship of the plaintiffs with defendant Nos.1 to 5, and it is contended that defendant Nos.6 to 8 are the purchasers of suit item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. It is contended that without their consent, Rangamma, Gowramma and Ramaiah sold the properties, and they had no exclusive

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶48

right to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8. Hence, it is contended that plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5.

¶49

Defendant No.6 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that they have purchased the properties from Ramakka, Gowramma and Ramalingaiah in the year 1976 under registered sale deeds dated 29.07.1963, 10.02.1970 and 27.05.1975 and by virtue of registered sale deeds, defendant Nos.6 to 8 became the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and on the strength of the registered sale deed name of defendant Nos.6 to 8 was entered in the revenue records. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed a suit against defendant No.6 in O.S.No.41/2009. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.6.

¶50

Defendant No.7 filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the plaintiffs with defendants

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶52

Nos.1 to 5, and it is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 5 sold the suit item Nos.1 to 5 to defendants Nos.6 to 8, and it is contended that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 attained the age of majority long back and they have not challenged the registered sale deeds within 3 years from the date of attaining majority. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶53

Defendant No.8 filed a written statement reiterating the written statement averments filed by defendant No.7. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶54

The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

¶55

parties, framed the relevant issues and additional issues.

¶56

The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and marked 29 documents as Exs.P1 to P29. In rebuttal, defendant No.7 was examined as DW.1, defendant No.6 was examined as DW.2, defendant No.8 was examined as DW.3, and they got marked 44 documents as Exs.D1 to D44. Defendant

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶58

No.8 examined one witness as DW.4. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs vide judgment dated 29.06.2017. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 29.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.297/2010, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.30/2017

¶59

on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadur.

¶60

The first Appellate Court, on a reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.10.2020 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.297/2010 dated 29.06.2017. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

¶61

Heard Sri. Vigneshwara S.Shastry, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs.

¶62

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He submits that the children of original propositus had no right to alienate item Nos.1 to 3

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶65

of the suit schedule properties, and defendant Nos.6 to 8 have not acquired any title by virtue of the sale deeds executed by the children of original propositus. Hence, he submits that the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶66

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

¶67

From the perusal of the documents, it discloses that item Nos.1 to 3 belongs to Gowramma. She was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. Admittedly, the legal representatives of the original propositus have sold the item Nos.1 to 3 under the registered sale deeds dated 10.02.1970, 27.05.1975 and 29.07.1963. Defendant No.6 had purchased the properties under a registered sale deed dated 15.02.1983 for valid consideration, and the

¶68

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶69

purchasers were to be in possession of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. The said sale deeds were executed in the year 1970 to 1983, the plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 2010. As of the date of filing the suit, the age of plaintiff No.1 was shown as 55 years, plaintiff No.2 age is shown as 38 years, plaintiff No.3 is aged 36 years,

¶70

and the age of plaintiff No.4 is shown as 34 years. Plaintiffs ought to have challenged the registered sale deed executed by the legal heirs of the original propositus within 3 years from the date of attaining the majority as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, wherein the plaintiffs have filed a suit in the year 2010. Hence, the suit filed by plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

¶71

Both the courts below, considering the said aspect, have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.

¶72

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:42239 RSA No. 1417 of 2021

¶75

ORDER

¶76

The appeal is dismissed.

¶77

Judgments and decrees passed by the

¶78

courts below are hereby confirmed.

¶79

No order as to the costs.

¶80

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶81

SKS

Smt. Lalithamma v. Smt. Suvarna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalithamma v. Smt. Suvarna

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 Venkatamma Vs Smt Venkatamma

Sri. Dinesh. R Vs Smt. Lokambika

Sri Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri Ravi Kumar

Ravi Vs Rajamma

Sri K Ranganatha Vs Sri K C Ramesh

Seenappa Vs Shivappa