Rajesh N Jain Vs Doreswamy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh N Jain Vs Doreswamy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

With the above observation, the second appeal is disposed of; the appellant-defendant No.4 remains at liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law meriting its admission. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no merit to admit the second appeal and no substantial question of law arises for framing.

Ratio / Principle

No ground is made out by the appellant with regard to the trial Court's observation that the sale was not made for the family necessity and that the appellant is not a bona-fide purchaser.

Key takeaways

As the plaintiffs' father is no more and their mother is alive, the mother is entitled to one share among her children in respect of the share of the father.obiter¶55
The appellant-defendant No.4 is at liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (RSA No.1213 of 2024) under Section 100 CPC by Rajesh N. Jain, purchaser-defendant No.4, against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2024 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in RA No.427/2019 dismissing his first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2019 of the Additional Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, in OS.No.73/2014 (partition suit). The sale to the appellant had taken place during the pendency of the suit (defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.1 sold to defendant No.3, who sold to defendant No.4); the trial court had held the sale was not made for family necessity and that defendant No.4 was not a bona-fide purchaser, and had granted 6/25th share in Item Nos.3, 5 and 10 and 1/5th in Item Nos.1 and 2, the claim in Item No.4 having been dismissed and left unchallenged. The High Court found no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law to frame, observed that the plaintiffs' mother, their father being dead, is entitled to one share among her children in respect of the father's share, and disposed of the appeal leaving the appellant at liberty to plead equity before the Final Decree Proceedings Court.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2024 (DEC/PAR)

BETWEEN:

RAJESH N. JAIN S/O NENMAL H. JAIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.7, 11^TH 'A' MAIN, 36^TH CROSS, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. LAKSHMISH G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DORESWAMY

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

2. SHIVARAMU

S/O LATE SHIVANNA, MAJOR R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

3. REKHA

W/O VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT B-TYPE-II, KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI, MYSURU.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024

HC-KAR

SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

MEENA W/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

TEKCHAND DEAD BY L.RS:

VIJU BAI W/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, FLAT NO.59/4 RAAM LEO HOUSE, 3^RD FLOOR, MARKET ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU.

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE TEKCHAND R/AT NO.4, FLAT NO.59/4 RAAM LEO HOUSE, 3^RD FLOOR, MARKET ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU.

KUSHALCHAND GANDHI S/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT RAJALAKSHMI AGENCIES, NO.217, 1^ST MAIN, NEAR IDGA GROUND ALBERT VICTOR ROAD BENGALURU.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024

HC-KAR

CHAMPALAL GANDHI S/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.254, VEENA KUNJ 1^ST 'C' CROSS, 5^TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, RANCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.

RUSIYA SHAH

D/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O NO.4, FLAT NO.59/4 RAAM LEO HOUSE 3^RD FLOOR, MARKET ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU.

POOJA D/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

ROJA D/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

YOGESH S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.427/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.73/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant’s counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

The present second appeal is filed by the purchaser-

defendant No.4. His contention is that the property which he had purchased from his vendors may be allotted to him in the Final Decree proceedings (FDP).

Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs does not dispute the fact that defendant No.4 had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that defendant No.4 is not a bona-fide purchaser. But the fact is that the sale was made by

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024

HC-KAR

defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.3, in turn, sold the properties in favour of defendant No.4.

It is not in dispute that the sale has taken place during the pendency of the suit. When the suit for partition is pending before the Court and when the trial Court comes to the conclusion that sale was not made for the need of family necessity, granted 6/25^th share in respect of Item No.3, 5 and 10, granted 1/5^th in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 and the claim in respect of Item No.4, the suit was dismissed and same is not challenged in respect of Item No.4 is concerned.

Now, the plaintiffs’ father is no more and their mother is alive and therefore, the mother is entitled for one share among her children in respect of the share of the father. The appellant is entitled to plead equity before the FDP proceedings. The sale made by some of the defendants is in respect of their shares.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024

HC-KAR

Hence, no ground is made out by the appellant with

regard to the observation made by the trial Court that the sale was not made for the family necessity and that the appellant is not a bona-fide purchaser.

There is no any merit to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

However, the appellant-defendant No.4 is at liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court.

With the above observation, the second appeal is

disposed of.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

HA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44