Second appeal against concurrent findings that suit item No.7, purchased in defendant No.5's name under a registered sale deed, was his self-acquired property. Plaintiffs failed to prove sufficient joint family nucleus; appeal dismissed and decrees below confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE C RUDRAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JEETHU R.S., AND SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 140.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.05.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.197/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISPOSING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2019 PASSED IN OS No.317/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This RSA is filed challenging the Judgment and decree dated 13.05.2020 passed in RA No.197/2019 by the Learned VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru and the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.317/2017 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, wherein the trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of item No.7 of the suit schedule properties.
NC: 2024:KHC:50234 RSA No. 1497 of 2021
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 8 are the children through two wives of Late.C.Rudraiah. Late.C.Rudraiah was the common propositus who died on 21.06.1981. Defendant No.2 is the wife of predeceased son of Late.C.Rudraiah. Defendant No.1 is the second wife of Late.C.Rudraiah. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. Suit item No.1 to 6 and 8 were acquired by Late.C.Rudraiah in a partition dated 04.02.1957 which is effected between him and his siblings, while item No.7 was purchased in the name of defendant No.5 under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1987, and the said item No.7 was purchased out of joint family nucleus. It is contended that, the plaintiffs are the coparceners and demanded for partition and separate possession. But, the defendant refused. Hence, a cause of
action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:50234 RSA No. 1497 of 2021
his legitimate share in the suit item Nos.1 to 6 and 8 of the suit schedule properties and prays to dismiss the suit in respect of item Nos.7 of the suit schedule property.
pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit
in respect of item No.7 of the suit schedule properties preferred an appeal in R.A.No.197/2019 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru. The appellate court, on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 13.05.2020. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this Regular Second Appeal.
property. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
NC: 2024:KHC:50234 RSA No. 1497 of 2021
acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence. The said view is supported by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade V/s Devendra Perrappa Chandgade and Ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 521 . Admittedly, in the instant case the plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish that the item No.7 of the suit property was acquired out of joint family nucleus. The plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden placed on them. Further the defendant No.5 contended that several properties are purchased in the name of plaintiffs but the plaintiffs have not included those properties in the suit schedule.
the courts below, were justified in passing 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. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed .
ii) The Judgments and Decrees passed by the
Courts below are hereby confirmed.
iii) No order as to the costs.
iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA
No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly
IA No.1/2021 is disposed of.
Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
RCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether suit item No.7 was joint family property purchased from family nucleus or the self-acquired property of defendant No.5.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade V/s Devendra Perrappa Chandgade and Ors.Relied on¶11
(2007) 1 SCC 521 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Basavarajaiah (dead) by his LRs - Usha Devi, K.B. Rudra Prasad, K.B. Ramya
K.R. Prakash
Smt. Kalamma
Smt. Sarvamangalamma
Smt. Akkamahadevi
Smt. Sowbhagya
Ashok S.Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
