Dismissed

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Smt. Rajamma

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024RSA/753/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Second Appeal at the admission stage. The appellant plaintiffs challenged the rejection of their plaint for partition of joint family properties, held that no substantial question of law arose as previous compromises and third-party rights were established. Relief: Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order as to costs.

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Smt. Rajamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.753 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. NARAYANAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶9

SRI NARASIMHASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶10

SRI SRINIVASA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ATTIBELE VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK,

¶14

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 107.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, W/O LATE KENCHAPPA,

¶21

SRI KRISHNAMURTHEPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE PATAPPA, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563130.

¶22

SMT NARAYANAMMA D/O KRISHNAMURTHEPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶23

SMT CHINNAMMA D/O KRISHNAMURTHEPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶24

SRI B K CHANDRAPPA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563130.

¶25

SMT JAYARAJI W/O B K CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶26

HARIPRASAD S/O B K CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶28

9. SAHANA

¶29

D/O B K CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. JAYARAJI R8 & R9 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL

¶30

GUARDIAN SMT. JAYARAJI THE RESPONDENT NO.7 HEREIN.

¶31

SMT. MANJULA D/O KRISNAMURTHEPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶32

SRI RAJENDRA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶33

SMT MANJULA W/O RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶34

13. YOGESH

¶35

S/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.

¶36

SANDYA, D/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS R13 & R14 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MANJULA THE RESPONDENT NO.12 HEREIN.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶39

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.

¶40

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶41

SRI MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶42

SMT. PUTTAMMA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶43

SRI NARASAPPA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶44

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶45

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R1 TO R21 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563 130.

¶46

SRI MUNISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O NANJAPPA, R/AT CHAMBE VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLE, MALUR TALUK,

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶48

KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶49

SRI S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SEETHAPPA, R/AT CHAMBE VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶50

SRI N. JAYARAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O B V NARAYANAREDDY, R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶51

MUNI KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT A NARAYANAPUR VILLAGE, VENKATAPPA COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, GARAVANI NAGARA, MAHADEVAPUR, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560048.

¶52

SMT. PUTTAMMA, W/O CHINNAPPA, D/O LATE KENCHAPPA, R/AT KOTE BIDI, HANUMANTHA BUILDING, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

¶53

JAMUNA BAI, W/O LATE B. BALAJISINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶56

28. LAKKAN SINGH, D/O LATE B BALAJISINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶57

JOSHU BAI D/O LATE B BALAJISINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶58

SONU BAI

¶59

S/O LATE B BALAJISINGH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.27 TO RESPONDENT NO.30 ARE R/AT BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563130.

¶60

B.H. RAGHAVENDRASINGH, S/O B.G. HARISINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563 130.

¶61

M. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KUMAMMADEPALLI VILLAGE, PAYRANDAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT -635 109.

¶62

R. ARUN, S/O LATE M RAMANJINEYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶64

R/O NEAR TO ANANTH RAM HOUSE, WHITEFIELD ROAD, GAUDACHARAPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560048.

¶65

GAGANDEEP S/O R MUNINARASAPPA @ NAGASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.

¶66

THE RESPONDENT NO.34 IS MINOR HIS FATHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.19, BY NAME R MUNINARASAPPA @ NARASAPPA, R/AT BHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶67

MALA, W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶68

NISHITHA D/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.36 IS MINOR, HIS MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN MALA,

¶69

RESPONDENT NOS.35 & 36 ARE R/AT BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT AND C/O DODDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDANALAHALLI POST HOSKTE TALUK-562 114.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶72

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER-I, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (K.I.A.D.B) NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶73

…RESPONDENTS

¶74

(BY SMT. JAMUNA T.B., ADVOCATE)

¶75

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.14/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 37 IN OS NO.135/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR. ALLOWING IA NO. 37 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT

¶76

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶77

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶78

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶79

This appeal is preferred by plaintiff Nos.2 to 6, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2024 in R.A.No.14/2024 on the file of the Principal District and

¶80

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶82

Sessions Judge at Kolar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2024 in O.S. No.135/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur, allowing the I.A. No.37 filed by defendant No.23 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, and as such, rejected the plaint.

¶83

For the sake of the convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. Relevant facts for adjudication are as under:

¶84

The plaintiffs have filed suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. Defendants have entered appearance and defendant No.23 has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by order dated 23.01.2024 allowed I.A. No.37 filed by defendant No.23 and as such, rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiffs.

¶85

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶86

4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal in R.A.No.14/2024 before the First Appellate

¶87

Court. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 02.04.2024 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the order dated 23.01.2024 in O.S.No.135/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the same plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶88

5. Heard Sri.Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Smt. Jamuna T.B., learned counsel appearing for Caveater-respondent No.23.

¶89

6. Sri. Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has invited the attention of this Court to the genealogical tree produced at page No.93 of the memorandum of appeal and contented that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and he further contented that, O.S.No.248/2010 was preferred by the contesting respondent herein, Sri.Munikrishnappa (defendant No.25) and the said suit came to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶92

filed by the parties. The contention of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that, unequitable portion of the properties was given to the mother of the appellantsdefendant No.1 and therefore, in order to set right the injustice caused to the branch of the father of the plaintiffMuniyappa, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.135/2013 and it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that there is a discrepancy with regard to Sy.Nos. 27/1 and 5/2 in earlier suit and also with regard to the suit in O.S. No.135/2013 presently filed by the appellants herein. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that, both the Courts below have not considered the factual aspects on record and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶93

7. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the Judgment and Decree.

¶94

8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in order to understand the relationship between the parties the

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶97

genealogical tree as produced by the plaintiffs/appellants

¶98

which reads as under:

¶99

9. A perusal of the same would indicate that, the

¶100

propositus-Muniyappa had 4 children viz., Sri. Muniyappa (father of the appellants), Kenchappa (father of defendant Nos.25 and 26), Krishnamurtheppa (defendant No.3) and

¶101

Ramakrishnappa(father of defendant Nos.16 to 20 and 21) and grandfather of defendant Nos.19, 31 and 32.

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶104

10. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Court below would indicate that, the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.248/2010 and in O.S. No.135/2013 are one and the same and after the compromise was executed between the parties in O.S.No.248/2010, several transactions have been made by the parties, in terms of the registered Sale Deeds executed between the parties to the suit with the purchasers of the property in question and therefore, the third party rights have been created pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.248/2010.

¶105

11. It is also forthcoming from the findings recorded by both the Courts below that, mother of the appellants-Rajamma(defendant No.1) was signatory to the compromise decree in O.S.No.248/2010 and having regard to the findings recorded by First Appellate Court particularly with regard to paragraph No.14 of the judgment in R.A. No.14/2024, I am of the view that, both the Courts have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein.

¶106

14 -

¶107

NC: 2024:KHC:31254 RSA No. 753 of 2024

¶108

12. Having taken note of the factual aspects on record that, as the several transition have been made pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.248/2010 and the Subject: matter of the properties in O.S. No.248/2010 and O.S.No.135/2013 are one and the same, I am of the view that, the appellants have not made out a case for framing of substantial question of law as regard required under Section 100 of the CPC.

¶109

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of

¶110

admission itself.

¶111

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶112

TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Smt. Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Smt. Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Talavar Duragappa Vs Sri D Jayappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Surendra Maniyani

Barikara Nagappa Vs Hosuramma

Shri K S Shivaprakash Vs Shri K.S. Veerabhadraprasad

Sri M S Ramaswamy Iyengar Vs Sri T Srinivas Since Dead by Lrs Smt Renuka

Sri. Govindappa Vs Sri. N H Rehman