Cross suits between heirs of two brothers over suit properties purchased in the name of Mahadevappa. Courts below rejected the claimed 23.04.1964 oral partition as unproved and time-barred, and upheld injunction in favour of Mahadevappa's heirs. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed both second appeals.
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:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1597 OF 2023 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1491 OF 2023 (INJ)
IN RSA No.1597/2023:
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAMAPPA S/O DODDALINGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS.
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC. AGRI.
R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE TQ CHANNAGIRI DIST DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
W/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE TQ CHANNAGIRI DIST., DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
ALL R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE TQ CHANNAGIRI DIST., DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SARITHA KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHIVALINGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 4
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRI R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE TQ CHANNAGIRI DIST DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
R/O KAGATHURU VILLAGE, TQ., CHANNAGIRI DIST DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
S/O LATE JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE, TQ. CHANNAGIRI DIST DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.06.2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.26/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.312/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
IN RSA No.1491/2023: BETWEEN:
OCC. HOUSEHOLD
ALL R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE TQ CHANNAGIRI DIST DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SARITHA KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE, TQ., CHANNAGIRI DIST., DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
S/O LATE MAHADEAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O HIREGANGURU VILLAGE, TQ., CHANNAGIRI DIST., DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.06.2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.28/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.312/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appeal in RSA No.1597/2023 is filed by the legal heirs of original defendant Siddaramappa s/o
Doddalingappa aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022 passed in O.S.No. 312/2012 on the file
of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which
was confirmed by judgment and order dated 02.06.2023 passed in R.A.No.26/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short).
said Siddaramappa aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022 passed in O.S No.287/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri, by which their suit was dismissed, which was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2022 passed in R.A.No.28/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri.
the matters, same are taken up for analogous hearing on admission and following order is passed;
Facts in RSA No.1491/2023
Siddappa was having four sons namely, (1)Halappa (2)
Basappa (3) Mahadevappa and (4) Doddalingappa. That there was an oral partition of the family properties amongst the four sons of Gudimundina Siddappa in the year 1942-43. That subsequently, on 06.01.1964 a registered partition deed was entered into amongst the said four sons, in furtherance to the oral partition that had been entered into amongst them in the year 1942-43 with regard to ancestral properties. That certain properties were purchased in the name of Mahadevappa in terms of deeds of sale dated 18.04.1951 which are the suit schedule property. That though there was a partition amongst the four sons of Gudimundina Siddappa on 06.01.1964, Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa stayed and
resided together as one joint family. That thereafter both Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa had entered into a oral partition on 23.04.1964 in terms of which, 1/2 share in the suit properties and in kaneshumari properties were allotted to the share of Doddalingappa and remaining 1/2 allotted to the share of Mahadevapppa. That despite of
such partition, the revenue records were agreed to be mutated in the name of Mahadevappa.
continued and name of Doddalingappa was never entered in the revenue records. Similarly, partition was also not registered. That plaintiff being son of Doddalingappa requested the defendants to come forward to register the partition deed in accordance with partition dated 23.04.1964 and since the same was declined he had even issued a notice dated 10.4.2011 calling upon the defendants to execute and register the partition deed in respect of suit schedule property. As there was no compliance to the demands so made by the plaintiff, he was constrained to file the suit seeking relief in the nature of declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute and register a deed of partition in accordance with terms of oral partition entered into on 23.04.1964. The said suit is filed against Shivalingappa, Vishwanatha and Nagarajappa who are the
sons of Mahadevappa and also against Ramesh-defendant No.3 and Rudresh-defendant No.4, who are predeceased sons of Mahadevappa namely, Jayappa.
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
Gudimundina Siddappa and thereafter in the names of
defendants. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
Court framed the following issues for its consideration;
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner of suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the interference by the defendants as alleged in the plaint?
4 Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
5. whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief's sought for?
7. what order or decree?"
and recorded evidence. During the pendency of the suit,
original plaintiff and defendant passed away and their legal
heirs are brought on record. Plaintiff No.1 (b) entered into
witness box and examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited
57 documents and also examined four independent
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
witnesses as PW.2 to PW.5. On the other hand defendant No.5 entered into the witness box as DW.1 and exhibited
12 documents and marked as Ex.D1 to D12.
"1. Whether the appellants established that, the trial Court failed to appreciate the Ex.P-16, Ex.P51 to 53 and Ex.P-55, which are sufficed to prove the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties followed by possession in right perspective and whereby came to wrong conclusion in the matter by dismissing the suit and as such, interfering with the findings given by the trial Court at the hands of this court is necessary?
and on re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, legal heirs of original plaintiff No.1 -Siddaramanna/Siddaramappa are before this Court in RSA No.1491/2023.
Facts in RSA No.1597/2023
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
oral partition that was entered into amongst four sons of Gudimundina Siddappa and said properties are the self acquired properties of Mahadevappa. Said Mahadevappa died leaving behind his wife-Gangamma and sons Shivalingappa, Jayappa, Vishwanathappa and
Nagarajappa. It is contended that defendant without having any share, title, interest over the property removed the Areca nuts from the suit property in the last week of September, 2012 giving raise to the cause of action for the appellants to file the suit for relief of injunction.
that suit schedule properties are in joint possession of the defendants pursuant to deed of partition dated 23.04.1964 that had been entered into between Mahadevappa and his brother Doddalingappa. It is contended that suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Doddalingappa in the said partition dated 23.04.1964 and after demise of
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
said Doddalingappa defendants are in the possession of the property.
framed the following issues for its consideration;
and recorded evidence and answered Issue Nos. 1 to 3 in
the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit
restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, defendants namely, legal heirs of Siddaramappa filed regular appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
points for its consideration;
"1. Whether the appellants made out sufficient grounds for staying the execution of judgment & decree passed in O.S.NO:312/2012 dt:16-08-2022 till disposal of the appeal?
2. Whether the appellants established that, the trial court not considered the crucial suggestion made to DW-1 by the counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that, the defendants have trespassed into the plaintiffs suit schedule properties and also failed to take note of the mahazar drawn by the revenue officials, whereby, clear recital being made to the effect that, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule properties, which are sufficed to come to conclusion that, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties but the defendants, as such, setting aside of the findings given by the trial court at the hands of this court is necessary?
3. What order or decree?"
First Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, legal heirs of Siddaramappa the original defendant in O.S.No.312/2012 have filed the RSA No.1597/2023.
(a) suit schedule properties belong to the joint family consisting of Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa, who are the 3rd and 4th sons of Gudimundina Siddappa. It is her submission that though there was a partition amongst four sons of Gudimundina Siddappa in the year 1942-43 which was reduced to the writing and registered on 06.01.1964, since the said Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa had married to sibling sisters and they had desired to reside and live together as a joint family consisting of themselves.
(b) It is her submission that suit schedule properties were purchased by both Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa under the deeds of sale dated 18.04.1951 and 10.03.1952. However, though Doddalingappa had also contributed to purchase the said property, the sale deed were made in the name of Mahadevappa. That since there was a cordial understanding between Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa and revenue records were effected in the
name of Mahadevappa, and the same continued during the lifetime of Mahadevappa.
(c) It is her further submission that it is only after demise of Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa dispute arose between their children. That since children of Mahadevappa had denied the very entering into the oral partition on 23.04.1964, it was necessitated for the sons of Doddalingappa to file the suit seeking direction for execution and registration of deed of partition in the line of understanding that had been arrived at between Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa.
(d) It is her submission that the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court without adverting to the evidence led in by the witnesses with regard to the factum of entering into such an oral partition on 23.04.1964 between Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa, courts below ought not to have dismissed the suit.
(e) It is her further submission that after the demise of Mahadevappa, the sons of Mahadevappa had
got their names entered into the revenue records before the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the same, children of Doddalingappa had filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. That the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Tahsildar entering the names of the children of Mahadevappa. As against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, children of the Mahadevappa had preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed by restoring their names in the revenue records. As against which the children of Doddalingappa have preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.22789/1991 which is pending consideration. She further submits that there is an order of status quo granted in the name of the parties.
(f) Thus, she submits that since there was sufficient evidence available on the record with regard to Mahadevpppa and Doddalingappa entering into the partition on 23.04.1964 in respect of the suit properties there was an obligation on the part of the defendants to
have executed and registered a deed of partition in terms of oral partition dated 23.04.1964.
(g) As regards the appeal in RSA No.1597/2023 is concerned, she submitted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit for injunction filed by the original plaintiff without reference to the plea of defendants with regard to the earlier oral partition dated 23.04.1964 and also without reference to the suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.287/2011 for relief of mandatory injunction for registration, execution and partition of suit schedule properties. Thus, she submits that non-consideration of the aforesaid aspects of the matter by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given raise to substantial question of law requiring consideration at the hands of this Court.
Halappa, (2) Basappa, (3) Mahadevappa and (4) Doddalingappa. There is also no dispute of the fact that the said sons of Gudimundina Siddappa had entered into an oral partition during the year 1942-43. There is also no dispute of the fact that in furtherance to the said oral partition a deed of partition was reduced to the writing and same was registered on 06.01.1964. Pursuant to which four sons of Gudimundian Siddappa occupied and enjoyed their respective shares of the properties as described thereunder. There is also no dispute of the fact that suit schedule properties were purchased in terms of deeds of sale dated 18.04.1951 and 10.03.1952 in the name of Mahadevappa.
a joint family properties. It is this issue which has lead to filing of a suit and a counter suit.
residing together as a joint family and that the suit properties having been purchased for and on behalf of the said purported joint family. There is another aspect of the matter, that is name of Mahadevappa was mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the deeds of sale dated 18.04.1951 and 10.03.1952 and the same continued till his death. There was no dispute or objection apparently made by the Doddalingappa during his lifetime about the name of the Mahadevappa continuing in the revenue records. Dispute apparently arose only after demise of Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa between their descendents.
NC: 2024:KHC:12748 RSA No. 1597 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1491 of 2023
and the First Appellate Court in both the suits. As such, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in these matters. Therefore, appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-JUDGE
RU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged oral partition dated 23.04.1964 between Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa was proved so as to direct execution of a registered partition deed.
Whether the suit for declaration was barred by limitation.
Whether the decree of injunction in favour of Mahadevappa's heirs could stand despite the plea of joint family ownership.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.S. Prakash
Gowramma
Smt. Nanda
Devaraja
Smt. Manjula
Vishwanatha
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
