Second appeal challenging confirmation of sale of ancestral property by mother and sisters while minor children were involved. Court held no substantial question of law as sale was for legal necessity and welfare of minors.
Second appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law framed; impugned judgment and decree affirmed.
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:26208 RSA No. 624 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2024 (PAR/DEC-)
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
BOTH ARE SONS OF
LATE CHANDRAIAH @ CHANDRA, BOTH ARE R/AT SANTHEMOGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. M.S.CHANDRASHEKAR BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
3RD CROSS, BELERAM LAYOUT, NEAR KRISHNA GARDEN, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESWARAI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560098
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.145/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel
for the respondents.
the Trial Court in the suit for partition and declaration that
the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The revenue records stands in the name of Chandraiah husband of the 1st defendant i.e., item No.1 of the suit property. After his death, the katha has been mutated in the name of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and there was no partition in their family. The item No.1 consists of 90 fruit yielding coconut trees. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 were showing the hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs and not allowing them to take part in the joint family affairs, hence in the first week of July 2009 the plaintiffs demanded their share in the suit properties. In the month of July 2009 the third defendant proclaimed that she has purchased the suit item No.1 from the defendant No.1 and 2 and tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs on obtaining document comes to know about that sale is made in favour of defendant No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC:26208 RSA No. 624 of 2024
have appeared and only defendant No.3 has filed written statement contending that due to family problems the 1st defendant availed loan and thereafter she was forced to mortgage on self redemption in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 suit property and on 15.10.1990 she mortgaged the properties and thereafter due to financial problem once again on 11.07.1991, she mortgaged the item Nos.1 and 2 in favour of one Chandraiah. As there is no other alternative for source of income they subjected to hand loan for maintenance of family and also education of the children. It is contended that they had obtained loan from Ramakrishna.T of Channapatna, Puttaswamy of Santhemogenahalli and T.L.Raju of Channapatna. It is also the case that in order to meet the loan as well as performing the marriage of one of the daughter Sunitha, executed sale deed on 21.06.2002 and the purchaser also improve the property by spending the money.
NC: 2024:KHC:26208 RSA No. 624 of 2024
of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the other hand, the defendants in support of their case examined the defendant No.3 and one witness as DW1 and DW2 got
marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D10.
to clear the loan. The very contention that the very execution of sale deed is null and void is also not accepted and negatived the contention of the plaintiff and granted the relief of 1/4th share and dismissed the suit for claiming 1/4th share.
the Trial Court an appeal is filed in R.A.No.12/2017 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal and having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the admission on the part of DW1 and also the recitals of the document Ex.D5 and sale is made not only on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also on behalf of minor children and the same is for the legal necessity in order to clear the loan as well as performing the marriage of daughter Sunitha and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the very approach of both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is erroneous and fail to take note of the fact that the
appellant is a minor at the time of selling the property and also contend that the very reasoning of the Trial Court that the sale is made for the benefit of the family is erroneous.
taken note of the fact that while selling the property, particularly in page No.6 of the sale, it is mentioned that defendant No.1 has executed the said sale deed for herself and on behalf of her minor children and also mother was in a position to decide with regard to the welfare of the minor children and also taken note of the Chapter No.1 page No.323 and Section 242 of Mulla Principles of Hindu law with regard to the alienation is concerned. Having considered the same in paragraph No.22 as well as in paragraph No.23, taken note of sale is made to clear the loan and also no dispute with regard to the fact that earlier there was a mortgage deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of C.Chandraiah dated 15.10.1990 and 11.07.1991 and also executed in favour of different persons and the same was redeemed and sale deed executed on the same
date. The reasons for selling the property is to clear the debts as well as conducting the marriage of daughter Sunitha and when such material is available on record and document discloses with regard to the fact that the sale was made for the benefit of the family as well as legal
necessity in order to clear the loan and also for performing the marriage and now cannot contend that it is not for legal necessity.
legal necessity and mother and children were taken care of by the paternal grand father. In order to evidence the said fact, no material is placed before the Court and when such material not available on record, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of both the recitals of the document and also reasons for selling of the property. After selling the property, the mother was also taken care of minor children having no other source of income for maintaining the family. When such material available on record, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 during the course of cross-examination. When such reasoning are given based on material, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial question of law as contended by the counsel. It is the fact that minor
children were also under the care and custody of mother during the time of selling of the property. Hence, question of framing any substantial question of law does not arise and I do not find any ground to admit and invoke Section 100 of CPC.
ORDER
i) The Second Appeal is dismissed. ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 109
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC constitues a substantial question of law regarding the sale of minor children's property by the mother.
Whether the disposal of property for family necessity and clearance of debts is legal under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Venkataram
Manju
Vasanta
Sunetha
A.L. Neetha
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
