Plaintiff's suit seeking 1/3rd share in ancestral property and declaration that sale deeds by her father were not binding on her was dismissed on a preliminary issue under Section 6 Hindu Succession Act; first appellate court confirmed. Second appeal dismissed 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:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. PADMA, W/O GURUMALLAPPA, D/O LATE MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BADAGALAHUNDI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI-570 026. MYSURU.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI B SHARATH KUMAR & SRI VENKATASWAMY.M, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
SUBBANNA, DEAD BY LRS.
D/O LATE SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.296/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.116/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE.
NC: 2024:KHC:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the reasons assigned in the affidavit
accompanying the application IA No.1/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 364 days in filing the appeal do not meet the requirements of Limitation Act, in the interest of justice, the delay of 364 days is condoned and the matter is taken up for Admission.
NC: 2024:KHC:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property
and also to hold the sale deed dated 8-12-1999 and 23-12-2006 as not binding on her.
property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, originally standing in the name of her grand father one Mahadevappa. The said Mahadevappa passed away leaving behind him the plaintiff, her father Madappa also known as Mahadevappa and defendants No. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs, by virtue of which, plaintiff succeeded to the suit property. It is contended that she is a poor, helpless and illiterate lady and due to poverty she used to stay away from the suit schedule property to earn her livelihood by doing coolie work. That during her absence, defendant No.1 and her deceased husband used to look
after the suit property as joint family members. That on 01-01-2011, defendant No.4 was carrying out some measurement in the suit schedule property and at that time, plaintiff learnt that defendant No.2 had purchased
the suit schedule property from defendant No.3. On verification of the records, she learnt that defendant No.1 and her husband and defendant No.2 have sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 under the deed of sale dated 08-12-1999 and in turn, defendant No.3 sold the same in favour of defendant No.4. The said alienation was not for legal necessity and also not for the benefit of the family and as such, the said alienation was illegal and detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and were not binding on her.
denying the plaint averments and contending that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit for partition of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of the father of the plaintiff and he having purchased the same under a deed of sale on 04-07-1997 and the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the father of the plaintiff as per MR No.66/1996-
NC: 2024:KHC:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
plaintiff has filed this suit in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 only to harass the defendant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
framed ten issues and took up issue Nos.5 to 7 as preliminary issues which are as under:
"ISSUES:
5. Whether 4th Defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act?
6. Whether 4th Defendant proves that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?
7. Whether 4th Defendant proves that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?"
First Appellate Court, adverting to the point raised for consideration, confirmed the judgment and decree passed
NC: 2024:KHC:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
by the trial Court and dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
NC: 2024:KHC:10265 RSA No. 623 of 2022
registered sale deed dated 08-08-1999. That an extent of 01 acre 34 guntas of land had been sold by the father of the plaintiff along with his wife and son. Thus even if the fact of property being absolute property of the father of plaintiff is accepted, the plaintiff may still not be entitled for any share in respect of the property which was absolutely belonging to her father and which was alienated by him during his life time.
question of law would arise for consideration. As such, the appeal is accordingly dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
tsn*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for partition was maintainable given that alienations pre-dated 20-12-2004 and fell under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Whether any substantial question of law arose in the second appeal.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Padma
Puttadevamma
Subbanna (dead by LRs)
Smt. Suvarnadevi
Smt. Rani
Smt. Rajakka
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
