Smt Saraswathi Vs Smt Shankramma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Saraswathi Vs Smt Shankramma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, pleadings and admissions which are against the appellants'/plaintiffs' case. +4 more

Court's answer

In the teeth of the admissions made on behalf of PW-1 and PW-2, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is just and proper.

Ratio / Principle

It is crystal clear that the property belonged to Rangappa; after his death his wife (mother of the appellants) managed the property, and there is clear mention as to why she sold the suit property to defendant No.8, who in turn sold it to defendant No.7.

Key takeaways

Defendant No.7, being a subsequent purchaser from defendant No.8, was not required to make any further enquiries with regard to the title to the suit property.ratio¶114
Both Courts having taken note that the alienation made by Shankramma, mother of the plaintiffs, was just and proper, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration.ratio¶166
The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal do not merit further consideration; consequently, the appeal is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC by the plaintiffs — daughters/legal heirs of Late Rangappa — against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2020 of the III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga in R.A.No.21/2018 and R.A.No.19/2018, which partly allowed the appeals against dismissal of O.S.No.13/2012 (I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga), a suit for partition and separate possession of Sy.No.17/2 (4 acres 24 guntas, including 14 guntas kharab), Hanumanthapura Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1, their mother Shankramma, sold the ancestral property to defendant No.8 (S.R. Srinivasa) by registered sale deed dated 16.02.2006 without family necessity, and that defendant No.8 onward-sold it to defendant No.7. Dismissing the RSA, the High Court (V Srishananda J) held: (i) in the teeth of the admissions of PW-1 and PW-2 in cross-examination (referred to in the Trial Court judgment) — that after Rangappa's death defendants 1 and 2 managed the family affairs and the suit property, that the family held other properties (residential house, Sy.Nos.34/P, 35/P1, 74/P) not included in the suit, and that the suit property had been sold about a year before the suit — the Trial Court's dismissal was just and proper; (ii) both Courts having held the alienation by Shankramma just and proper, there were no good grounds to admit the appeal; (iii) defendant No.7, as a subsequent purchaser from defendant No.8, was not required to make further title enquiries; (iv) the substantial questions of law did not merit further consideration. Appeal dismissed; cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to defendant No.3 (as confirmed by the First Appellate Court) stands.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT SARASWATHI W/O RANGANATHA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/O PILLANGERE VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 227.

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O JAYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O VALMEEKI BEEDI,

NYAMATHI HONNALI TALUK,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 223.

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JAYAMMA W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/O YALAKAPPA BEEDI,

VIDYANAGAR,

SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

SHANTHAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O NEW MANDLI, NEAR WATER FILTERING STATION, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

SHARADAMMA

W/O RANGANATHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KESURUKOPPA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 228.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH T B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT SHANKRAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DURGAMMANAKERI, VIDYANGAR EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

HARISHA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DURGAMMANAKERI, VIDYANGAR EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

SMT. PETRITIA LOBO W/O DENNIS LOBO, AGED AOUT 43 YEARS, R/O HANUMATHAPURA, (HOSAMANE TANDA) PILLANGERE POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 227.

S R SHRINIVASA S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HANUMATHAPURA, (HOSAMANE TANDA)

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

PILLANGERE POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, HIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 227.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ELIZABETH RODRIGUES, ADVOCATE FOR R-3(ABSENT) R-1, R-2 & R-4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.21/2018 AND RA.19/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.13/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. T.B. Sandesh, learned counsel for the

appellants. None appears for the respondents.

The plaintiffs are the appellants, who were unsuccessful in getting the decree of partition and separate possession in respect of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.17/2, belonging to the joint family.

The brief facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

A suit came to be filed for partition and separate possession of the following immovable property hereinafter referred as suit schedule property for convenience:

“Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.17/2 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas out of which kharab is 14 guntas and Hiduvali land measuring 4 acres 10 guntas, situated at Hanumanthpura Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, which is bounded by:

East : Sy.No.18/1, 2, 3 West : Tunga Channel North : Sy.No.25 South: Road.”

3.1 According to the plaint averments, suit schedule

property is the ancestral property and defendant No.1 being the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6, without any family necessity sold the property in favour of defendant No.8, S.R. Srinivasa, through a registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.2006.

3.2 In turn, the said Srinivasa sold the property in favour of defendant No.7. Without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and other legal heirs of Late Rangappa, who is the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 and husband of defendant No.1.

3.3 It is also contended that defendant No.1 had no

authority to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8. As a result, the plaintiff being the daughter and defendants Nos.2 to 6 being other legal representatives of Rangappa, entitled for share in the suit schedule property.

During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 to

6 got transposed themselves as plaintiffs and hence, original defendant Nos.7 and 8 were made as defendant Nos.3 and 4.

Upon receipt of suit summons, the defendants entered appearance and it is the original defendant Nos.7 and 8, who filed their written statement, denying the plaint averments in toto.

5.1 Defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed a written statement making a counter claim that they are also entitled for the share in the suit schedule property.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

5.2 Pertinently, defendant No.1 being the mother of the

plaintiffs and defendant No.2 did not choose to file any written statement.

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties, heard

the arguments of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to defendant No.3.

Against the judgment of the Trial Court, original plaintiff, Saraswathi filed R.A.No.21/2018 and transposed plaintiffs, namely Ratnamma, Jayamma, Shanthamma and Sharadamma, who were original defendant Nos.3 to 6 before the Trial Court, filed R.A.No.19/2018.

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 23.09.2020 recorded a finding in negative only on issue No.3 raised by the Trial Court with regard to insufficiency of the court fee, dismissed the appeal of

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

the plaintiff as well as original defendants Nos.3 to 6 and confirmed the dismissal of the suit and payment of cost payable to defendant No.3 in a sum of ₹ 5,000/-.

Being further aggrieved by the same, the original plaintiff, Saraswathi has filed the present appeal, including defendant Nos.3 to 6, who were subsequently transposed as plaintiffs, against their mother and Harisha, who is the brother of the plaintiffs and the alienees, who are the original defendant Nos.7 and 8, preferred the present second appeal on the following grounds:

The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.

That the Courts below while passing the judgments and decrees failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.

That the Courts below while passing the judgments and decrees failed to consider the fact that the respondent No.3 proves that suit property was sold by respondent No.1 and 2 for legal necessity and also without giving sufficient opportunity for appellant to put forth their which is against the principle of natural justice.

That the court below while passing the judgment and decree have not properly viewed the evidence and the admission given by the DW.1 during the course of

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

cross-examination and the respondent No.3 has not proved that there was legal necessity to sale the property.

That the courts below while passing the judgment and decree fail to consider that the finding given by the court below relying upon exhibit P.1 to P.11 that the suit schedule properties are alienated properties and they have to be valued with pecuniary valuation is in correct and no such evidence is on record on the part of the respondents.

That the court below wile passing the judgment and decree fail to answering issue No.1 and finding given by the courts below are also improper and incorrect.

In the appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised:

“i. Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, pleadings and admissions which are against to the appellant / Plaintiffs case?

ii. Whether the reasons assigned by both the courts below are perverse?

iii. Whether both the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit by answering Issue No.4 against the appellant when the burden of proving Issue No.4 was on respondent No.1 to 2 alone by entering the witness box and also without giving opportunity for the appellant to prove his case as per Sec 101 of the Evidence Act?

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

iv. Whether both the courts below were justified in dismissing the pass impugned judgments failed to consider the long standing settled possession of the Appellants herein in the suit schedule property?

v. Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit in contrary to the documents produced by the Appellant?”

Sri. Sandesh T.B., learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that both the courts failed to note that there was no legal necessity for defendant No.1 to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant No.8 at the first instance, who in turn having sold the property in favour of defendant No.7, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

He would also contend that the alienees have specifically admitted before the Court that they did not know that Rangappa had daughters and therefore they purchased the property based on the representation made by defendant No.1, Shankramma, who is the wife of Late Rangappa and defendant No. 2 Harisha, who is the son of Late Rangappa.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

He would also contend that merely on the fact that the alienees are bonafide purchasers would not take away the right to seek partition by the plaintiff and original defendants Nos. 3 to 6, who are the appellants before this court and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent is absent.

In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants, this court perused the material on record meticulously.

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the property belonged to Rangappa. After the death of Rangappa, it was his wife i.e., the mother of appellants, who was managing the property. There is a clear mention as to why she sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.8 at the first instance. It is defendant No.8 who has sold the property in favour of defendant No.7. Therefore, insofar as defendant No.7 is concerned, she is a subsequent

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

purchaser and was not required to make any further enquiries with regard to the title to the suit property.

PW.1 and PW.2 in their cross-examination

specifically made few admission, which are referred in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Trial Court, which reads as under:

“16. PW1 has go produced the RTC extracts, mutation registers extracts of the suit property marked as Ex.P1 to P3 and Ex.P5 to P11 respectively. PW1 has got produced the certified copy of the sale deed of defendant No.7. executed by the defendant no.8 on 07.01.2010 marked as Ex.P4. She has produced the certified copy of the sale deed of her father Rangappa dated: 14.04.1966 marked as Ex.P12. PW2 has produced the certified copy of the sale deed of defendant no.8 executed by the defendants no.1 and 2 on 16.02.2006 marked as Ex.P13. Both PW1 and PW2 have prayed to decree the suit and prayed to allow 1/7 share to each in the suit property by metes and bounds. The defendant no.7 has denied the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and her counsel subjected PW1 and PW2 for cross-examination. Both PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination have categorically admitted that after the death of their father Rangappa, the defendants no.1 and 2 being the elders of the family, were managing the affairs of the suit property. PW1 in her cross-examination has admitted that it is the defendant no.8 who has obtained the certified copy of the sale deed

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

as per Ex.P12 and P4 given to her to file this suit. PW1 in her cross-examination, has stated that except the suit property, there is no other property available for their joint family for partition. Even though she has denied the suggestion that the defendant no.8 instigated her and other family members to file this suit and at the instigation of defendant no.8, she has prosecuted this case to make false claim over the suit property even though they have no right over the suit property. Likewise, PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination, have denied the suggestion that even though they are having other family properties at their disposal, with an intention to harass the defendant no.7 and to deprive her right over the suit property, have filed this false suit only with respect to the alienated property of defendant no.7 and are making false claim over the suit property. However, both PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination, have sated that they have sold the suit property in favour of defendant no.8 about one year back from the date of filing of the suit. But however, they have sold the suit property without any specific reason.

17. Both PW1 and PW2 have admitted the suggestion that their family is also having the residential houses at their disposal and both of them have sated that the said house property is in possession of the defendant no.2 and he has made improvement to he said house property. They have admitted the suggestion that the defendant no.2 after alienating the suit property, has renovated the said house property and he constructed a RCC house in the said property. Both PW 1 and PW2 have

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

admitted the photographs confronted to him and admitted that the said house property is belonging to the defendant no2 and he has renovated the house property and converted it into a residential house after the death of his father, as both PW1 and PW2 have admitted the said photographs they are marked as Ex.D1 and D2. PW1 has further admitted the suggestion that the said house property is now standing in the name of the defendant no.2. PW1 has admitted the said document and the same is marked as Ex.D3 PWI has categorically admitted that after the death of her father, it is the defendants no.1 and 2 who are managing the affairs of the family and they were managing the suit property PW1 has stated that she is not aware as to whether the defendant no.2 after he sold the suit property to defendant no.8. purchased the land hearing Survey No 34/P measuring 1.00 acre on 5-92007 under a registered sale deed from one Veerappa and others. Likewise, she has stated that she is not aware as to whether the defendant no.2 had also purchased the land bearing Survey No.35/p1 measuring 30 guntas from one SK. Ravikumar, under a registered sale deed dated 3- 7-2006. She has further stated that she is not aware as to whether the defendant no.2 had also purchased the remaining 30 guntas of land in the very same Survey No.35/P1 from one Parameshwarappa under a registered sale deed and all these properties have been purchased by defendants no.1 and 2 out of the sale proceeds acquired by them after they sold the suit property to defendant no.8. PW1 has stated that she is not aware as to whether her family was also possessing the land

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

bearing Survey No.74/P measuring 2 acres 6 guntas at Uragadur village and out of the said land, towards the western side, 1-00 acre of land was sold to one Vishwanatha, by executing a registered Sale deed on 07.04.2007. She has denied the suggestion that the remaining extent of land of the very same survey number was sold to one Kamath, by executing a registered Sale Deed in his favour.

18. PW1 has further stated that she is not aware as to whether her family had also possessed the and bearing Survey No.74 of Urgadur village and likewise, whether here family has possessed the land veering survey No.60/1 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas. Even though PW1 denied the suggestion that she along with defendants no.1 to 6 have jointly sold the said proepryt to one Smt. Jayamala, W/o thimme Gowda by executing a registered Sale Deed dated: 19.11.2009 and also sold 11 guntas of land of the very same survey number in favour of one Kalkivani, by executing a registred Sale Deed. PW1 has admitted her signature found on vakalath when confronted to her and the Said vakalath is marked as Ex.D4 and her signature is marked as Ex.D3(a). Even though she has denied the suggession that she has not intentionally included all the family property purchased anad only with an intention to knock off the property purchased by the defendant No.7, she has filed this suit by colluding with defendant no.8, Even though PW1 in her cross-examination she has denied the entire suggestions put to her, has denied that she aling with her family members have sold some of their joint family properties

15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

in favour of purchaser by executing the registred sale deeds and those properties wsere not interntionally included in this suit. However, PW2 in her crossexamination, has categorically admitted that the house property shown in Ex D1 and D2 is her ancestral property and her father during his life time, had resided in the said property and at that point of time, it was a Mangalore tiled house property and subsequently after the death of her father, the defendant no.2 had invested a huge amount and renovated said property and constructed a RCC house in the said property and now he is residing in the said property along with his family members. PW2 has even admitted the suggestion that the defendant no.8 has leased out some portion of the property shown in Ex.D2 in favour of tenants and is getting the rent from the property. Even PW2 in her cross-examination, has denied the suggestion that the defendant no.2 after he sold the suit property in favour of defendant no.8, purchased the properties bearing Survey No.34/P measuring 1-00 acre under a registered sale deed on 5-9-2007 and also purchased the land bearing Survey No.35/P1 measuring 30 guntas from one M.P. Gopinath, under a registered Sale Deed dated 3-7-2006. Likewise, PW2 also has denied the suggestion that she along with other family members, have jointly sold their family property bearing Survey No.74 situate al Uragadur village measuring 1 acre 6 guntas in favour of one Vishwanatha by executing a registered sale deed on 7-4-2007 to which she also is a signatory. However, she has admitted her signature confronted to her and has admitted that she has signed

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

the said document and the signature on the said document belongs to her. As PW2 has admitted her signature and the document confronted to her, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 7-4-2007 executed by the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2 in favour of one P.V. Vishwanath in respect of the land bearing Survey No.74/P marked as Ex.D5 and her signature on the document Ex.D5 I marked as Ex.D5(a).”

Further, in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the judgment, learned Trial Judge as held as under:

“ 20. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in this suit have not shown that before they filed this suit, they have sold some of the family properties for their legal necessity and they have not included all the suit properties in this suit. As I have discussed supra, both PW1 and PW2 have not chosen to deny the suggestion that after the defendants no.1 and 2 sold the suit property, the defendant no.2 purchased the land bearing Survey No.35/P1 measuring 30 guntas from one S. Kumar, under a registered Sale Deed on 3-7-2006 and also purchased 30 guntas of land in the same survey no.35/P1 from one Parameshwarappa under a registered Sale Deed and both the said properties were available for partition. Admittedly, PW1 and PW2 even though admitted that their family had also held the residential house as shown in Ex.D1 to D3, have not included that property in this suit even though the said property is standing in the name of defendant no.2 and the same was mutated in his name after the death of

17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

their father Rangappa. These facts clearly prove that the plaintiffs have filed this suit only with respect to the properties which have already been alienated to the defendant no.8 and in turn, the defendant no.8 to defendant no.7. The defendant no.3 in order to prove her defence that the defendants no.1 and 2 for their legal necessity and for improvement of their family properties have sold the suit property in favour of defendant no.8, has got examined herself as DW1. She has categorically deposed that the defendants no.1 and 2 being close relatives to defendant no.4, as the suit property was lying fallow for many years and it was not fetching any income, sold the said property to defendant no.4 by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 16-2-2006 and delivered the vacant possession of the property in favour of defendant no.4. She has deposed that the defendant no.4 being the absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, for his legal necessity, sold the property in her favour for a valuable sale consideration and executed the registered sale deed dated 17-1-2010 which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shivamogga and delivered the vacant possession of the suit property in her favour. She has deposed that since the date of purchase of the suit property. she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she has been personally cultivating the suit property and all the revenue documents with respect to the suit property were lawfully mutated in her name by recognizing her as khatedar of the suit property. has deposed that before the khatha was mutated in her name

18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

based on the sale deed, one Basavarajappa, S/o Parasappa filed his objection statement before the Tahsildar, Shivamogga, by raising his objection and as such, an inquiry was initiated under RRT. DIS.CR.01/2010-11 and after holding an inquiry, the Tahsildar, Shivamogga set aside the claim of Basavarajappa and the khata was mutated in her name vide order dated 17-1-2011. DW1 has categorically deposed that the defendants no.1 and 2 for their legal necessity and for improvement of other family properties, have sold the suit property to defendant no.4 and subsequently after selling the suit property, the defendant no.2 purchased the land bearing Survey No.34/P measuring 1-00 from one Veerappa, under a registered Sale Deed dated 5-9-2017 and subsequently, the defendant no.2 has also purchased the remaining 30 guntas of land in the very same survey number 35/P1 from one S.K. Kumar and another and likewise, he has purchased 30 guntas of land from one N.P. Gopinatha, S/o Parame shwarappa and all the above referred lands were purchased by the defendant no.2 out of the sale proceeds derived by him after selling the suit property from defendant no. 4. These plaintiffs have not included all the properties in this suit. She has further deposed that the defendants no.1 and 2 have also sold other properties to the purchasers bearing Survey No.74/P by executing the registered sale deeds and the plaintiffs have intentionally not included all the properties that have been already sold in favour of purchasers. DW1 has categorically deposed that the plaintiffs at the instigation

19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

of defendant no.4, has filed this suit and has developed a hostile attitude against her. She has deposed that the defendant no.4 is the master behind this suit and she has refused to give 14 guntas of kharab land and as he failed in getting the said land in all his attempts, instigated the plaintiffs and other family members to file this false suit.

21. DW1 has got produced the certified copy of the sale deeds dated 3-7-2006 executed by one S.K. Kumar in favour of defendant no.2 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.35/P1 measuring 30 guntas marked as Ex.D9. DW1 has produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed of defendant no.2 dated 3-7-2006 executed by one Gopinath in respect of the land bearing Survey No.35/P1 measuring 30 guntas marked as Ex.D10. She has produced the Mutation Register extract of the said property standing in the name of defendant no.2 based on the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D11 and D12. She has produced the RTC extract standing in the name of defendant no.2 in respect of the land bearing Survey no.35/P1 marked as Ex.D13. She has produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed standing in the name of defendant no.2 executed by Veerappa and his family members on 5-9-2007 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.34/P of Hanumanthapura village marked as Ex.D14. She has produced the Tax Paid Receipts for having paid the tax payable to the suit property after she purchased the suit property marked as Ex.P15. DW1 has produced the RTC extract standing in her name with respect to the suit property based on the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D16. She has produced the Gazette Notification in respect of the

20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

valuation of the suit property fixed by the Government marked as Ex.D17. She has produced the Valuation Report of the market value of the properties relating to Hanumanthapura village and Uragadur village fixed by the Government marked as Ex.D18. She has produced the endorsement issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar, Shivmaogga in respect of the suit property regarding the market value of the suit property marked as Ex.P19. She has produced the Revision Settlement Akarband of the suit property standing in her name marked as Ex.D20.”

In the teeth of such admissions made on behalf of PW-1 and PW-2, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is just and proper.

Leaned judge in the First Appellate Court not only upheld the finding recorded by the Trial Court, but has also supplemented additional reasons to uphold the judgment in paragraph Nos.25, which reads as under.

“25. Likewise, the argument of the learned counsel for defendant no.3 that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale transaction took place between the defendants no.1 and 2 with defendant no.4, as the defendant no 4 is none other than the cousin brother of the plaintiffs and is a very close relative of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and they have intentionally not challenged the sale deed of defendant no.4 before he alienated the suit property in favour of

21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

defendant no.3 and only after the defendant no.4 sold the suit property in favour of defendant no.3 and delivered the possession of the suit property, filed this false suit with a malafide intention by colluding with the defendant no.4 is fully convincing this Court. The conduct of the defendant no.4 during the stage of trial clearly shows that he has lawfully sold the property to the defendant no.3 and subsequently colluding with plaintiff, not choose to contest this suit during the stage of trial. The plaint have utterly failed to prove that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit property was their joint family property in their joint possession and enjoyment and as such, they being the daughters of late Rangappa, are entitled for 1/7 share each in the suit property, The defendant no.3 by adducing the oral and documentary evidence before this Court, have proved that the Sale Deed executed by the defendants no.1 and 2 in favour of defendant no.4 is binding on the plaintiffs and other family members and have no right to seek for cancellation of Sale Deed standing in her name purchased by her for a valuable consideration amount after due verification. Hence, by taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, this Court answered the issue no.1in partly affirmative and the issue no.4 in affirmative.”

21. When both the Courts have taken note of the fact

that the alienation made by the Shankramma, who is the mother of the plaintiffs is just and proper, this court does not

22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34445 RSA No. 1061 of 2021

HC-KAR

find any good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration.

Accordingly, following:

ORDER

i) The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal do not merit for further consideration.

ii) Consequently, appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

BMC

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 23.09.2020 in R.A.No.21/2018 and R.A.No.19/2018, partly allowing the appeals and modifying the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 in O.S.No.13/2012 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga¶44
III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga · 23.09.2020
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.13/2012 filed by the plaintiffs (now appellants) for partition and separate possession of immovable property bearing Sy.No.17/2 belonging to the joint family¶50
Prior proceeding
As per plaint averments, the suit schedule property was ancestral and defendant No.1 (mother of the plaintiffs) sold it without family necessity to defendant No.8, S.R. Srinivasa, by registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.2006¶58
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.8 (Srinivasa) in turn sold the property to defendant No.7¶59
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 to 6 got transposed as plaintiffs and original defendant Nos.7 and 8 were renumbered as defendant Nos.3 and 4¶66
Prior proceeding
Original defendant Nos.7 and 8 filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto¶67
Prior proceeding
Defendant Nos.3 to 6 (transposed plaintiffs) filed a written statement with a counter claim that they are also entitled to a share in the suit schedule property¶68
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1, mother of the plaintiffs, did not file any written statement¶73
Prior proceeding
Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to defendant No.3¶75
Prior proceeding
Original plaintiff Saraswathi filed R.A.No.21/2018 and transposed plaintiffs (original defendant Nos.3 to 6) filed R.A.No.19/2018 against the Trial Court judgment¶76
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 23.09.2020, recorded a finding in negative only on issue No.3 (insufficiency of court fee) and dismissed both appeals¶78
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal of the suit and the payment of cost of ₹5,000/- payable to defendant No.3¶82