Dismissed

Sri Manjunatha H S v. Sri H K Thimmegowda

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2024RSA/212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction based on an unregistered settlement deed allegedly executed by Yallamma. Both lower courts dismissed the suit for want of legally acceptable evidence. The High Court found the unregistered document invalid under Section 17 of the Registration Act, no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the second appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Manjunatha H S Vs Sri H K Thimmegowda — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri Manjunatha H.S. S/o Late Hucchegowda @ Ayyanna, Aged about 35 years, C/o K.O. Rangappa Opp. Badagodamma Temple, TB Extension, Nagamangala Town, Mandya District-571432.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri. Y K Narayana Sharma, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

Sri H.K.Thimmegowda, S/o Late Konegowda, Aged about 61 years R/a Hirisave Village and Hobli,

¶14

Channarayapatna Taluk-573124.

¶15

Smt. H. T. Latha, D/o Sri H.K.Thimmegowda, W/o Sri Sathish, Aged about 33 years, Residing at Kodihalli Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District-571445.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶18

Sri H. T. Manjunath, S/o Sri H. K. Thimmegowda, Aged about 31 years, Residing at Hirisave Village and Hobli, Chananrayapatna Taluk-573124.

¶19

Sri G. S. Shankarachari, S/o Late G. N. Singhachari, Aged about 68 years Residing at Gurigaranahalli Village, Saravanabelagola Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk-573135.

¶20

Sri T. T. Sridhara, S/o Sri Thopegowda, Aged about 38 years, Residing at Tondahalli Village Alisandra, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District-571418. ...Respondents

¶21

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC praying to call for the records in R.A.No.56/2020 in the Court of the VII Addl. District Judge, Mysuru and the records in O.S.No.19/2012 in the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022 passed in R.A.No.56/2020 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan, and also the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2020 passed in O.S.No.19/2012 by the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna or pass other suitable orders by allowing this appeal with costs throughout in the interest of justice.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶24

This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following :

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who is

¶27

before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2020, passed in O.S.No.19/2012, on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna, ('trial Court' for short), which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 19.10.2022, passed in R.A. No.56/2020, on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna (First Appellate Court).

¶28

The above suit in O.S.No.19/2012 is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶29

It is the case of the plaintiff that one Huchhegowda had four sons, namely Konegowda, Thimmegowda, Dasappa and Huchegowda @ Ayyanna. The

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶31

first son Konegowda had three children, namely Rajanna, Kondegowda and Thimmegowda (defendant No.1). The second son Thimmegowda had a wife by name Yallamma, but, no issues. The third son Dasappa had three children, namely Chandra, Kondegowda and Venkatesha and fourth son Huchegowda @ Ayyanna had four children, namely Sunanda, Shoba, Sumalatha and Manjunatha H (plaintiff).

¶32

It is the further case of the plaintiff that all the sons of Huchegowda have partitioned the ancestral properties. Since the second son Thimmegowda and his wife Yallamma had no issues, they brought up the plaintiff and treated him as their own son. That since the plaintiff was taking care of Yallamma and Thimmegowda, after the death of husband of Yallamma, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiff by way of Deed of Settlement dated 01.01.2003. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner thereof.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶35

That on 13.08.2003, the plaintiff had given an application to the Tahsildar, Channarayapatna, for change of katha and was under an impression that the katha has been changed. That just about two months prior to the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.4 started to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property asserting that he has purchased the same from defendant Nos.1 to 3 through registered Sale Deed about three years prior to filing of the suit.

¶36

That on verification, the plaintiff found that defendant No.1 had concocted Panchayat Palupatti alleged to have been executed by Yallamma in his favour based on which he had obtained revenue entries in his name. That defendants 1 to 3 had executed and registered a Sale Deed dated 26.11.2008 in respect of 5 guntas of suit property. It is further contended that plaintiff has reason to believe that Yallamma's left thumb impression had been forged by defendant No.1 to create deed of partition dated 10.02.2003

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶39

in collusion with the witnesses and scribe. Hence, suit for declaration.

¶40

Defendants 1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that suit property originally belonged to Huchhegowda and in a partition it was allotted to the share of second son Thimmegowda and after death of Thimmegowda, name of his wife Yallamma was entered in the revenue records. Yallamma had no issues and she brought up defendant No.1 as her son. Defendant No.1 had taken care of Yallamma till her demise. She had executed a Panchayath Palupatti on 10.02.2003 and allotted the suit property to defendant No.1. Later she died on 06.06.2004. That on the basis of

¶41

the said Palupatti, defendant No.1 got his name entered in the revenue records. Plaintiff filed the suit after lapse of nine years on the basis of alleged settlement deed which he

¶42

has fabricated by forging the thumb impression of Yallamma, plaintiff has never been in possession of the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶45

property and plaintiff has not challenged the khatha till date and hence sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶46

During the pendency of the suit defendant No.5 was impleaded who filed written statement contending that defendant No.1 had sold 5 guntas of land out of suit property and sold 4.04 guntas of remaining land in favour of defendant No.5 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 23.05.2011 based on which name of defendant No.5 has been entered in the revenue records. It is also contended that Yallamma also had sold during her life time properties in favour of other persons which have not been included by the plaintiff. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶47

Based on the pleadings, trial Court framed following issues:

¶48

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties?

¶49

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged palupatti dated 10-02-2003 will not in any way affect the plaintiff absolute title, ownership and possession over the suit schedule property?

¶50

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties?

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶52

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the suti land?

¶53

5. Whether the valuation is proper and Court fee paid to sufficient?

¶54

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?

¶55

7. What order or decree?"

¶56

On appreciation of evidence, trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the negative and issue No.5 in the affirmative and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.56/2020 and based on the pleadings, First Appellate Court framed following points for its consideration:

¶57

"1. Whether the trial court was justified in holding that plaintiff has failed to prove declaration and permanent injunction along with interference by defendants?

¶58

2. Whether the findings of the trial court requires interference by this court?

¶59

3. What order or decree?"

¶60

On reappreciation of evidence, First Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶63

Learned counsel for appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submitted that trial Court and First Appellate Court grossly erred in not relying upon the settlement deed dated 01.01.2003 produced by the plaintiff solely on the ground that same had not been registered. It is his further submission that the trial Court and First Appellate Court on the other hand erred in relying upon case of the defendants though they never entered the witness box nor did they lead any evidence. He submits that trial Court and First Appellate Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff being one of the heirs of Yallamma and Thimmegowda even otherwise would have succeeded to his share in the property. That aspect of the matter has not been considered. Thus, he submits trial Court and First Appellate Court ought to have moulded the relief instead of dismissal of the suit thus giving raise to substantial question of law.

¶64

Heard and perused the records.

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶66

The suit of the plaintiff was one for declaration

¶67

of his title based on purported settlement deed dated 01.01.2003 allegedly executed by Yallamma in his favour. It is further case of the plaintiff that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the said settlement deed.

¶68

Plaintiff claim to be the son of one Huchhegowda who is stated to be the brother of Thimmegowda. Thimmegowda had a wife by name Yallamma and both Yallamma and Thimmegowda died issueless. It is based on this relationship plaintiff claim that he was taking care of Yallamma till her demise and that in consideration of the same, Yallamma had conveyed this property in his favour in terms of said settlement deed.

¶69

Admittedly said document is not registered in the manner known to law. Needless to state

¶70

conveyance/creation of right, title and interest in respect of immovable property value of which is more than Rs.100/requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶73

Registration Act. The trial Court and First Appellate Court taking note of this requirement of law have declined to accept the said document dated 01.01.2003. Since the plaintiff sought for declaration of title, he is required to produce legally acceptable evidence which admittedly not produced in this case. It may be a different aspect of the matter that the plaintiff otherwise may be entitled for the share in the property of Thimmegowda and Yallamma, however, that is not the case which is pleaded by the plaintiff before the trial Court. The specific case of the plaintiff being he having acquired absolute right, title and interest in the schedule property pursuant to unregistered settlement deed dated 01.01.2003 which has been rightly declined by the trial Court and First Appellate Court for want of legal evidence.

¶74

In that view of the matter trial Court and First Appellate Court have committed no error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:15616 RSA No. 212 of 2023

¶77

Needless to state that dismissal of this appeal may not come in the way of plaintiff seeking any other relief

¶78

which he is entitled and permissible under law.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

bk/SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri Manjunatha H S v. Sri H K Thimmegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Manjunatha H S v. Sri H K Thimmegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Thippeswamy Vs Sri H.N. Revanasiddappa

Smt. Appi, Vs Puttur Taluk the Tahsildar

Sarojamma Vs Ramakrishnappa Dead by Lrs Munilakshmamma Dead

Smt Drakshayini Vs Sri Doddegowda

Smt Kamalamma Vs Sri Krishnappa

Smt Dyavamma Vs Smt Rangamma