Dismissed¶89

Sri. Edigara Eranna S/O Late Sri Edigara Basappa v. Smt Gangamma W/O Sri Basappa

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025RFA/100081/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; daughters as coparceners; 1/6th share each; ancestral joint family property; relinquishment deed and affidavits held nominal and executed only for raising bank loans; additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC rejected where the fact was not pleaded in the written statement; Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC; Section 96 CPC first appeal; Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Ballari; O.S.No.256/2021; appeal dismissed at admission; no costs; Edigara family, Koluru village, Kurugodu taluk, Ballari district.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself, upholding the Trial Court's decree granting the plaintiff-respondents 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties; no order as to costs. ¶89

Sri. Edigara Eranna S/O Late Sri Edigara Basappa Vs Smt Gangamma W/O Sri Basappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. +7 more

¶40

Court's answer

Even accepting the defendants' plea that the properties originally belonged to Smt. Edigara Rangamma (sister of Edigara Hanumanthamma), she being a spinster, the properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants through Hanumanthamma; the defendants produced no evidence of Rangamma's ownership.

¶76

Ratio / Principle

I.A.No.2/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence (copies of registered relinquishment deed and affidavits) could not be entertained and is liable to be rejected: the execution of the relinquishment deed and affidavits was never pleaded in the written statement, and the application does not come under any of the parameters of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

¶77

Key takeaways

On a preponderance of probabilities, the relinquishment deed and affidavits are proved to be nominal: the defendants themselves knew the plaintiffs were not really relinquishing the properties, the documents having been executed only to enable the defendants to raise loans from banks and financial institutions; hence no actual relinquishment by the plaintiffs.ratio¶80
With the additional evidence application rejected, the suit schedule properties stand proved to be ancestral and joint family properties, the relationship of the parties being admitted; the Trial Court was correct in declaring the plaintiffs entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.), RFA No.100081 of 2024 (PAR/POS), decided 20-01-2025: Appeal by defendant Nos.1 to 6 against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2023 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari in O.S.No.256/2021, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-daughters (claiming as coparceners) for partition and separate possession was decreed granting them 1/6th share each in the ancestral joint family properties — DISMISSED at the admission stage itself. Held: (i) I.A.No.2/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce a registered relinquishment deed and affidavits as additional evidence was liable to be rejected, since the execution of those documents was never pleaded in the written statement and the application satisfied none of the parameters of Order XLI Rule 27; (ii) on a preponderance of probabilities the relinquishment deed and affidavits were nominal, executed only to enable the defendants to raise loans from banks and financial institutions, and effected no actual relinquishment by the plaintiffs; (iii) even assuming the properties belonged to Smt. Edigara Rangamma, she being a spinster they devolved through Edigara Hanumanthamma on the plaintiffs and defendants; (iv) with the additional evidence excluded, the properties stood proved ancestral and joint family with the relationship admitted, and the Trial Court's declaration of 1/6th share each to the plaintiffs was justifiable and legal, requiring no interference. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100081 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI EDIGARA ERANNA S/O. LATE SRI EDIGARA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. W.NO.3, KOLURU-VILLAGE, KURUGODU-TALUK,

¶7

BALLARI-DISTRICT-583112.

¶8

SRI EDIGARA VENKATESH S/O. SRI EDIGARA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. W.NO.3, KOLURU-VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK, BALLARI-DISTRICT-583112.

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. EDIGARA VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI RANGAIAH S/O. EDIGARA VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶12

SRI BASAPPA S/O. EDIGARA VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶13

APPELLANTS NO.S 3 TO 5 ARE R/O. W.NO.3, KOLURU-VILLAGE, KURUGODU-TALUK, BALLARI-DISTRICT-583112.

¶14

SRI EDIGARA SRINIVASA S/O. EDIGARA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. W.NO.3, KOLURU-VILLAGE,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶17

KURUGODU-TALUK, BALLARI-DISTRICT-583112.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA G.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND

¶21

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. SRI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. W.NO.28, KALLID NAGAR, RAMANGARA, BANDIHATTI, C.B. BALLARI-583101.

¶22

SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O. SRI RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. D.NO.8/512, B.C.NAGAR, GOOTY, A.P.-420001.

¶23

SRI EDIGARA RANGAPPA S/O. EDIGARA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. W.NO.4, SHIVANAGAR, KOLLURU-VILLAGE, KURUGODU, TQ. BALLARI-DISTRICT-583112.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)

¶26

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI IN O.S.NO.256/2021 DATED ON 01.12.2023 DECREED THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS AND TO DISMISSED THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS FULLY WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶29

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

¶32

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for the parties it is taken up for final disposal.

¶33

The appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in O.S.No.256/2021 challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2023 passed in O.S.No.256/2021 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari, thereby, the suit filed for partition and separate possession is decreed by granting 1/6^th share each to the plaintiffs, in the suit schedule properties.

¶34

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶35

The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession. One Edigara Basappa was the original

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶37

propositus having wife by name Edigara Hanumanthamma. Both died leaving behind defendant No.1 as only son. Defendant No.1 had two wives by name Nagamma and Saraswathi. Both Nagamma and Saraswati died about 17 years and 15 years back, respectively. Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 are children of defendant No.1 and Nagamma (1^st wife). Plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are children of defendant No.1 and Saraswati (2^nd wife). It is not disputed that the suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs being daughters claiming as they are coparceners, filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

¶38

Defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and prayed for dismissing the suit.

¶39

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶40

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of themselves and defendants?

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶43

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the defendants got effected partition behind there back and mutated their names in respect of the suit schedule properties?

¶44

3. Whether the defendants prove that, there was a already partition on 08.06.1984 in respect of suit schedule properties?

¶45

4. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation?

¶46

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit?

¶47

What order or decree?

¶48

In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.1 is

¶49

examined as PW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-26. Defendant No.7 is examined as DW-1 and defendant No.6 is examined as DW-2 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.D-1 to Ex.D-6.

¶50

The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit by granting 1/6^th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit properties. The Trial Court assigned reason that the suit properties are joint family and ancestral properties, as it is not denied by the defendants and the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶53

relationship between the parties is also not disputed. Hence, decreed the suit.

¶54

Being aggrieved by it, defendant Nos.1 to 6 preferred this appeal. In this appeal, the defendants have filed an interlocutory application No.2/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) for production of additional documents.

¶55

Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 6 submitted that the appellants herein have executed the registered relinquishment deed relinquishing all their right, title and interest, but this was not produced due to oversight. Hence, prays to consider the same as additional documents and requested to hold that since relinquishment deed is registered one, the plaintiffs do not have any right,

¶56

title or interest over the suit property. Further, learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 6 submitted that the plaintiffs had executed affidavits by confirming that they have relinquished their right, title and interest over the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs with all consciousness

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶58

have executed registered relinquishment deed and affidavits. Hence, prays this Court to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶59

On other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that whatever may be the relinquishment deed and affidavits, are only for the sake of enabling the defendants to raise loan from banks and financial institutions, but they had not really relinquished their properties. He read out the affidavits that these plaintiffs do not have any objection to raise loan by their brothers. Therefore, only for this limited purpose, such relinquishment deed and affidavits are executed only for the purpose of benefiting the defendants to raise loan. Hence, there is no actual relinquishment of properties in favour of the defendants. Further, submitted that the relinquishment deed and affidavits were not produced in the suit before the Trial Court. Though the defendants have knowledge regarding

¶60

execution of these documents, none of the parameters are attracted to receive these documents as additional evidence

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶63

filed along with I.A.No.2/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 R/w Section 151 of the CPC.

¶64

Further, submitted that the defendants have not taken any pleading in the written statement regarding execution of relinquishment deed and affidavits. Therefore, the defendants have totally not pleaded and not produced any evidence in the suit regarding relinquishment deed. Since, the defendants knew that those documents are only nominal for the sake of benefiting the defendants as their brothers enabling them to avail loan from banks and financial institutions. Therefore, submitted that the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶65

Upon hearing arguments of both the sides and perusing the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration in the present appeal, are as under:

¶66

i) “Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/defendants No.1 to 6 make a ground for allowing I.A No.2/2024 filed under

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶69

Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for production of additional evidence?

¶70

ii) Whether, under facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right, title and interest over the suit properties with all their consigns by the plaintiffs?

¶71

iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court?”

¶72

The relationship between the plaintiffs and

¶73

defendants as above discussed is not disputed. The suit properties are the joint family and ancestral properties is also not disputed. The defendants’ contention is that the suit properties are originally belong to one Edigara Rangamma,

¶74

who was sister of Edigara Hanumanthamma i.e., wife of original propositus Edigara Basappa. To this extent, the defendants have not produced any evidence. The said Smt.Rangamma was a spinster. Though accepting pleadings of the defendants that the properties belong to Smt.Rangamma, but she is a spinster. Therefore, the

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶76

properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants through Hanumanthamma.

¶77

The defendants have not taken any pleadings in their written statement that the plaintiffs have earlier executed registered relinquishment deed and also affidavits. But straight way in this appeal defendants No.1 to 6 have filed I.A No.2/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, for producing copies of registered relinquishment deed and copies of affidavits. But this fact of execution of relinquishment deed and affidavits were not pleaded in their written statement. Defendants No.1 to 6 have not pleaded in their written statement regarding relinquishment deed and affidavits. Hence, the application filed for production of additional evidence in this appeal could not be entertained since absolutely there is no pleading in the written statement in this regard.

¶78

Furthermore, the defendants knew the very fact of relinquishment deed and affidavits, but could not have taken pleadings and produced any evidence in this regard. Therefore, this conduct of defendant Nos.1 to 6, fortifies the

¶79

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶80

submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that those relinquishment deed and affidavits were nominal sake for the purpose of enabling the defendants to raise loan from banks and financial institutions. This is fortified upon perusing the affidavits produced in this appeal along with an application. Therefore, on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the defendants knew that whatever relinquishment deed and affidavits are there, are not really relinquishing the properties by the plaintiffs. Hence, they are proved to be nominal sake. Therefore, I.A No.2/2024 filed for production of additional evidence does not come under any of the parameters under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. Therefore, the application filed for production of additional evidence is liable to be rejected.

¶81

When the application filed for production of additional evidence is liable to be rejected, then it is proved that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and relationship of parties is also admitted. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in declaring that the

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-D:829 RFA No. 100081 of 2024

¶84

plaintiffs are entitled for partitions of 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties.

¶85

Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by

¶86

the Trial Court is justifiable and legal one which need not be interfered with by this Court.

¶87

Accordingly I answer points No.1 to 3 in the

¶88

negative.

¶89

Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the state of admission itself. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶90

No order as to costs.

¶91

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶92

SRA-para 1 to 9. PMP-para 10 to end CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Issues for consideration

8 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants.¶40
The court held
Even accepting the defendants' plea that the properties originally belonged to Smt. Edigara Rangamma (sister of Edigara Hanumanthamma), she being a spinster, the properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants through Hanumanthamma; the defendants produced no evidence of Rangamma's ownership.ratio¶76
2.
Whether the defendants effected a partition behind the plaintiffs' back and mutated their names in respect of the suit schedule properties.¶43
3.
Whether there was already a partition on 08.06.1984 in respect of the suit schedule properties.¶44
4.
Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.¶45
5.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed in the suit.¶46
6.
Appeal point (i): Whether the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 6 make out a ground for allowing I.A.No.2/2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for production of additional evidence.¶66
The court held
I.A.No.2/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence (copies of registered relinquishment deed and affidavits) could not be entertained and is liable to be rejected: the execution of the relinquishment deed and affidavits was never pleaded in the written statement, and the application does not come under any of the parameters of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.ratio¶77
7.
Appeal point (ii): Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs relinquished their right, title and interest over the suit properties with all their consent.¶70
The court held
On a preponderance of probabilities, the relinquishment deed and affidavits are proved to be nominal: the defendants themselves knew the plaintiffs were not really relinquishing the properties, the documents having been executed only to enable the defendants to raise loans from banks and financial institutions; hence no actual relinquishment by the plaintiffs.ratio¶80
8.
Appeal point (iii): Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court.¶71
The court held
With the additional evidence application rejected, the suit schedule properties stand proved to be ancestral and joint family properties, the relationship of the parties being admitted; the Trial Court was correct in declaring the plaintiffs entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties.ratio¶84

Sri. Edigara Eranna S/O Late Sri Edigara Basappa v. Smt Gangamma W/O Sri Basappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Edigara Eranna S/O Late Sri Edigara Basappa v. Smt Gangamma W/O Sri Basappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharanappa S/O. Devappa Dusal Vs Shankarappa S/O Devappa Dusal

Fakkiragouda S/O. Basanagouda Sankanagoudar Vs Shankarappa S/O. Kallappa Talwar

Neelappa S/O. Ningappa Hirehal Vs Shankarappa S/O. Kallapa Talwar

Yamanawwa W/O Haonamappa Goudappagol Vs Rukamavva W/O Parasappa Halabar

Mohan S/O Krishnachar Malagi Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri. Nandakumar S/O Damodar Naidu Vs Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation