Second appeal by a purchaser challenging decrees granting a coparcener 1/15th share in joint family property and holding the sale deed not binding on her share. The court found no substantial question of law, noting the appellant failed to prove he was misled, and dismissed the appeal while observing his equity remedy against vendors' shares.
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:5274 RSA No. 2222 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2222 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
H B RANGANATH
S/O LATE H. BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT D.NO.23/1 6TH CROSS, D BANUMAIAH ROAD K R MOHALLA MYSURU-570 004.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. DHANUSHRI R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT D NO.678 2ND CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR BOGADI CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 026.
2. NAGARAJ
S/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. SANNEGOWDA
S/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NC: 2024:KHC:5274 RSA No. 2222 of 2023
4. MRS SAROJAMMA
D/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
D/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKANKANAHALLI KASABA (H), SRIRANGAPATNA (T), MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.5001/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.37/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant being the purchaser of the schedule
property is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.37/2013 dated 30.07.2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for
NC: 2024:KHC:5274 RSA No. 2222 of 2023
short) by which the suit for partition filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff was decreed granting 1/15th share in the suit schedule property which is confirmed in R.A.No.5001/2017 dated 14.09.2022 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna) (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short).
defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property was not binding on the plaintiff insofar as her 1/15th share of the suit schedule property is concerned.
memorandum of appeal vehemently submitted that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser and that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had suppressed the fact of plaintiff being the
member of the joint family. It is her submission that appellant had paid the entire sale consideration and her
name has also been entered in the revenue records. It is further contended that since the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had exerted fraud and deceit on the appellant, and the plaintiff not having proved her relationship with the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the manner known to law, Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not justified in decreeing the suit. Hence, she submits that substantial question of law would not arise for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:5274 RSA No. 2222 of 2023
mislead by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 with regard to the plaintiff being member of the joint family, he cannot be heard to contend that the plaintiff is not a member of the joint family. If appellant was aware, which he admits, that suit schedule property to be the joint family property it was incumbent upon the appellant to have exercised all the diligence before entering into the sale transaction. No material evidence is placed on record in that regard. No evidence is also produced in the nature of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants in support of contention of the appellant having been mislead by defendant Nos.1 to 4 regarding plaintiff not being the member of the joint family. Nothing prevented the appellant to have examined his own vendors in support of his contention of plaintiff not being the member of the joint family. That being the fact the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having take into consideration of the factual aspect of the matter have arrived at just conclusion
NC: 2024:KHC:5274 RSA No. 2222 of 2023
in decreeing the suit granting 1/15th share to the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit schedule property.
and in view of dismissal of the appeal all pending applications are disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31
RU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the purchaser from some co-sharers was a bonafide purchaser not bound by the plaintiff's 1/15th share in the joint family property.
Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
H B Ranganath
Mrs. Gayathri D/o Nathegowda @ Chaluvegowda
Nagaraj
Sannegowda
Mrs Sarojamma
Mrs Lakshmamma
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
