In a property partition appeal, the Karnataka High Court reviewed whether an adopted son could claim rights in his adoptive mother's self-acquired property sold to third parties, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose.
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:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
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. 36 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
KANTHARAJU ADOPTED S/O NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT VITTARAVATHANAHALLI URDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK - 572 140.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH (SINCE DEAD BY SOLE L.R APPELLANT HEREIN IS ALREADY ON RECORD IN THIS APPEAL)
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O M. APPAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O AMBIKA BRICK INDUSTRY KESARUMADU AT AND POST URDIGERE HOBI TUMKUR TALUK - 572 104.
W/O VIJAYAKUAMR B.R., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF AMBIKA BRICK INDUSTRY KESASRUMADU AT AND PSOT URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 104.
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:23.04.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.140/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.252/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2017 passed in O.S.No.252/2014 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru which is confirmed by the judgment and Order dated 05.02.2021 passed in R.A.No.140/2020 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
place in the Veerbhadraswamy Deity of Devarahosalli Village in the presence of the elders, as per customs.
2.1. It is contended that the suit schedule property belonged to the family of himself and defendant No.1 and the same is situated adjacent to Tumakuru town. The had shifted his residence to Vittaravathanahalli Village and he was taking care of defendant No.1 from his house by supplying all necessaries to the defendant No.1.
2.2. It is further contended that without the knowledge of the , defendant No.1 has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 in the year 2000 and plaintiff learnt about the sale just 3 months prior to filing of the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff found defendant No.2 has been cultivating the land as lessee under the defendant No.1. He also learnt that defendant No.2 inturn had sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 on 10-07-2012. Thus he submits that sale of the property by the defendant No.1 in favour defendant No.2, defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on him.
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
i. Whether the plaintiff proves he is the adopted son of the 1st defendant?
ii. Whether the plaintiff proves the himself and the 1st defendants are the members of the Hindu undivided joint family?
iii. Whether the plaintiff proved suit schedule property is the joint family property?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the plaint?
v. What order?
"1. Whether the applicant has made out grounds to allow application for additional evidence?
2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference by this Court?
3. What order?"
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
family property. That the defendant No.1 without his knowledge and consent has sold the same in favour of the defendant No.2 in the year 2000 and defendant no.2 has sold the preopty in favour of defendant no.3 on 10.07.2012 and the said deeds of sale are not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his half share in the property.
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
defendant No.1 on 04.11.2000 has further sold the same in favour of defendant No.3 in terms of deed of sale dated 31.03.2012. Considering these aspects of the matter the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that in the absence of plaintiff producing any evidence to the effect that the suit schedule property was purchased by the defendant No.1 from and out of any joint family funds or to show the suit schedule property came into the hands of defendant No.1 after the death of her husband through the joint family nucleus, came to the conclusion that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of the defendant No.1. Accordingly, declined to accept the claim of the plaintiff of he having share in the suit schedule property and consequently dismissed the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:5272 RSA No. 36 of 2022
appreciation has come to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff with the source of acquisition of the suit schedule property by defendant No.1 in terms of deed of sale dated 07.01.1980. the First Appellate Court while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has found that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff has no share, right, title and interest over the same.
In view of the aforesaid finding and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
RL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was legally adopted as the son of the defendant No.1?
Whether the suit schedule property constitutes joint family property or self-acquired property?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a partition and declaration of invalidity of the sale deed executed by the adopted mother?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kantharaju
Nagarathnamma
Balachandra Naidu
Ambika
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
