Second appeal by a purchaser-defendant against decree for plaintiff's 1/6th share in ancestral property purchased by her grandmother. The Court held no substantial question of law arose since the bonafide purchaser defence was never pleaded below, and dismissed the appeal.
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:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.246 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
NINGAPPA KUNDAWAD, S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC:MASON, R/O DOOR NO.606, S M KRISHNA NAGARA, BUDIHAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka
2. CHOWDAMMA
D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, W/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O KURUBAGERI, NEAR BEERESHWARA TEMPLE, ARASIKERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK.
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NC: 2024:KHC:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
AGRICULTURE R/O G DADAPURA VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK.
D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, W/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O NEW CAMP BUDIHAL VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TQ DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.H SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R6 (ABSENT) R4 AND R5 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED R3 SERVED H/S VO/DATED 01.08.2024 R1, R3. R4, R5 & R6 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF R2)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.09.2015 PASSED IN RA.NO.21/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.15/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HARAPANAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
NC: 2024:KHC:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli, in R.A.no.21/2014, this appeal is filed.
Suit claim was based on assertion that grandmother of plaintiff namely Hanumavva had purchased suit properties. She had two sons namely Chowdappa and Bharamappa. It was stated, original defendant no.1 - Holeyamma was wife of Chowdappa, while Chowdamma - defendant no.2, Basavarajappa - defendant no.3, Bharmappa - defendant no.4, Renukamma - defendant no.5 and plaintiff were children of Holeyamma and Chowdappa.
NC: 2024:KHC:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
It was stated that defendant no.6 - Ningappa Kundwadad was son of Chandrappa. It was stated, since plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 5 constituted joint family, they were entitled for share in suit properties. As defendants were trying to alienate suit properties even after claim by plaintiff for share, cause of action had accrued and suit for partition was filed.
placed ex-parte . While defendants no.1, 3 to 5 and defendant no.6 entered appearance. But, no written statement was filed.
Therefore, trial Court framed following points for consideration.
got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Defendants did not lead any evidence.
to 3 in negative and point no.4 by dismissing suit.
grounds. Based on contentions urged, first appellate Court framed following points for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
item no.1 of suit properties from defendants no.4 and 5 on 02.05.2005 much before filing of present suit. It was submitted, since vendors of appellant were also parties to suit, he had presumed that they would contest suit and protect his interest. Even in appeal, since trial Court had dismissed suit, appellant though had entered appearance was under same presumption. However, it appears due to collusion, they did not contest suit or appeal. Moreover, without proper appreciation of material on record and reasons assigned by trial Court, first appellate Court reversed decree. Therefore, following substantial question of law would arise for consideration:
"Whether first appellate Court was erred in not considering appellant has bonafide purchaser of item no.1 of suit properties?"
Learned counsel prayed for answering same in favour of appellant and allow appeal.
judgment and decree.
NC: 2024:KHC:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
representatives of Hanumavva as Chowdappa and Bharamappa and entry of name of grandchildren. Ex.P3 was genealogy showing Hanumavva had two children by name Chowdappa and Bharamappa. On consideration of same, first appellate Court was of view that sale deed would indicate purchase of item no.1 of suit properties by grandmother of plaintiff and defendants and Exs.P2 and P3 would indicate that deceased Hanumavva
had two children and plaintiff and defendants were legal representatives entitled for share in it.
NC: 2024:KHC:50134 RSA No. 246 of 2016
and defendants no.2 to 5 as legal representatives. Therefore, shares would require to be altered.
GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first appellate Court erred in not considering that defendant no.6 was a bonafide purchaser of item no.1 of suit properties?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ningappa Kundwad
Kenganamma @ Laxmavva
Chowdamma
Basavaraj
Bharamappa
Renukamma
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
