Dismissed¶¶81

Sri. Ajaya D K v. Sri K S Dushyanthraj

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025RSA/149/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings upheld; partition suit O.S.No.25/2012; suit property held not ancestral / not joint family property; sale deed dated 24.11.1999 (Ex.P.12) held valid and for legal necessity; plea of nominal sale / security document rejected; bona fide purchaser defendants 2 and 3; resale in 2009; plaintiff's knowledge of sale via maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; no substantial question of law framed; Section 100 CPC; Order 41 Rule 31 CPC urged; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Davanagere courts; single judge H.P. Sandesh.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal, directed against concurrent findings of the courts below, discloses no ground to admit the appeal or to frame a substantial question of law. ¶¶73

Sri. Ajaya D K Vs Sri K S Dushyanthraj — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. +4 more

¶¶51

Court's answer

The suit schedule property is not ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1; consequently, the question of granting any share to the plaintiff does not arise.

¶¶69

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal, directed against concurrent findings of the courts below, discloses no ground to admit the appeal or to frame a substantial question of law.

¶¶73

Key takeaways

The sale evidenced by Ex.P.12 satisfied the prerequisites of a valid sale, was effected by defendant No.1 on his own behalf and for his family, and was supported by legal necessity.ratio¶¶69
The First Appellate Court's conclusion, on the recitals of Ex.P.12, that the 1999 sale was for legal necessity (meeting expenses of the children, improvement of business and education) was accepted by this Court; the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit.ratio¶¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh J.), by order dated 14.11.2025 in RSA No. 149 of 2025 filed under Section 100 CPC, dismissed a regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (O.S.No.25/2012, decree dated 12.06.2023) and the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.158/2023, judgment dated 05.09.2024). The plaintiff, son of defendant No.1, claimed partition alleging the suit property was joint family property and that his father's 24.11.1999 sale to defendant No.2 (his uncle) for Rs.76,000/- was nominal/a security document. Both courts below had held the property not ancestral, the sale (Ex.P.12) valid and for legal necessity (expenses of children, health, education and business improvement), and defendants 2 and 3 bona fide purchasers (with resale to defendant No.3 in 2009). Upholding these concurrent findings, the High Court held there was no ground to admit the appeal or frame a substantial question of law, noting the parties' knowledge of the sale from the Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance proceedings, and dismissed the appeal, with pending I.As. disposed of accordingly.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.149 OF 2025 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. AJAYA D.K., 5S/O K.B. DUSHYANTHRAJ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2345 2 STAGE, 4TH MAIN NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION DAVANAGERE CITY-577001 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. K.S. DUSHYANTHRAJ S/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶16

SRI. K. BHEEMAPPA S/O K. SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶17

THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577005.

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O MURIGENDRAPPA MAHALINGAPPARA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O KANDAGAL VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK-577514 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶22

KIRAN KUMAR D.K., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK-577005 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO158/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court claiming to be the son of 1^st

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

defendant that he is under the care and custody of his mother Smt.Manjula. The suit property fell to the share of the 1^st defendant in a family partition and thereafter, the Khata of the suit property was also changed in the name of the 1^st defendant. The suit schedule property is a joint family property. Further, pleaded that the plaintiff and his mother Manjula had filed a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC and the said petition was allowed and granted maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and plaintiff on 01.06.2011. The defendant in order to avoid right of maintenance only he had created a sale deed in the year 1999 and also contended that a Panchayath was held in the year 2003 and it was only a nominal sale deed and not the sale. When the demand was made to share the property, he did not agree to demand and hence without any other alternative relief, he has filed the suit for the relief of partition and also contend that the sale made is not binding. The defendant No.1 appeared and

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

filed a written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and admitted the relationship and defendant No.1 already married Smt.Premleela in the year 1993 itself and in the said wedlock, 4^th defendant is born. It is contended that Manjula led a happy marital life and as the 1^st defendant had age old mother, Manjula was not ready to look after his mother and Panchayath was held on 05.01.2003 in the presence of Shivacharya Swamiji of Sanehalli Matha and ended in divorce of defendant No.1 and Manjula, then 1^st defendant filed a petition for Constitution of Conjugal Rights in M.C.No.112/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere and Smt.Manjula refused to come and join the company of 1^st defendant and he withdrew the petition. It is also his contention that

¶37

1^st defendant in order to meet the expenses of the education of his children and also to improve the maize business, sold suit property to his uncle K.Bheemappa for sale consideration amount of Rs.76,000/- on 24.11.1999. It is also his contention that in view of the sale deed

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

executed by the 1^st defendant, 2^nd defendant was in peaceful and enjoyment of the suit property till 29.09.2009 and thereafter, 2^nd defendant executed the sale deed in favour of 3^rd defendant. It is further contended that the plaintiff and the other son of 1^st defendant Premakiran were also parties to the sale deed dated 24.11.1999 and they were represented by their father and the 1^st defendant as natural guardian on behalf of the minor. The defendant No.2 having entered appearance and he also filed separate written statement re-iterating the averments of the written statement of the 1^st defendant. The defendant No.3 also filed separate written statement, prior to the marriage, the 1^st defendant was already married to Smt.Premleela on 25.02.1993 and in the said wedlock, 4^th defendant is born and similar set of facts are pleaded by the 3^rd defendant also.

¶42

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings

¶43

of both plaintiff and defendants, framed the issues. In view of the defence of the 2^nd defendant that he is a

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

bonafide purchaser, he sold the suit schedule property to 3^rd defendant and in lieu of the said defence, plaintiff also pleaded that the said sale deed dated 24.11.1999 is nominal sale deed executed in favour of 2^nd defendant. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence did not accept the case of the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion that 2^nd defendant was a bonafide purchaser. He also inturn sold the property long back in the year 2009 and also taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 though he pleaded that already executed the sale deed, but he says in his evidence that it was only a security document and the same is discussed in paragraph No.27 and also in paragraph No.41 taken note of sale was also made on behalf of the minors as well as other family members and hence, dismissed the suit.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.158/2023. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the appeal memo, framed the point for consideration whether the Trial Court has committed an error in concluding that suit schedule property is not a joint family property of plaintiff and first defendant by answering Issue No.1 and also additional Issue No.1 together and whether

¶52

the Trial Court committed a glaring error in concluding that sale dated 24.11.1999 executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant to meet his legal necessity and whether the defendant No.2 and 3 are the bonafide purchasers for the valuable consideration and whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession.

¶53

The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the material on record and also taken note of P.W.1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he sold the property in favour of second defendant to meet the expenditure towards the health of his second wife,

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

education of his son and towards development of the property and there is no any pleadings in the written statement regarding incurring expenditure towards the health and also improvement of his business and for purpose of children education is also taken note of and the sale is for the legal necessity. In paragraph No.37 to 43 of the judgment, in detail discussed that sale was made for the benefit of the family and hence, answered all the points as negative.

¶57

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court and the main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that as on the date of sale of the property, the plaintiff was 2 years old and Appellate Court also not exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and both Courts failed to appreciate the evidence available on record, particularly Ex.P.12 by defendant No.1 in favour of 2^nd defendant and the same is not for legal necessity, but, Court comes to the conclusion that it is for legal necessity

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

and hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive

¶62

question of law.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶64

appellant and also the reasoning particularly taking note of the pleadings of the plaintiff, it is very clear that property was sold in the year 1999 itself and suit is filed in the year 2012. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that immediately after attaining the majority only, suit is filed. The fact that records available on record discloses that there is a dispute between the husband and wife and also maintenance petition was filed and maintenance was also ordered in favour of the plaintiff as well as his mother and parties are having the knowledge about the sale of the property and apart from that though D.W.1 contend that document of sale deed is only a security document and hence, it is clear that in one breath says that the property was sold for the legal necessity and also received the sale consideration of Rs.76,000/- in the year 1999 itself. Apart from that sale

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

deed document Ex.P.12 clearly discloses the prerequisites

¶69

for a valid sale and he had sold the property not only on his behalf and also the family of himself and the same is also for legal necessity and inturn subsequently, the 2^nd defendant also sold the property in favour of the 3^rd defendant. The Trial Court having assessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that sale transaction was taken place in 1999 and thereafter, second sale was also made in the year 2009 itself in favour of the 3^rd defendant and properties are also exchanged between the subsequent purchasers. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record while answering Issue No.1, comes to the conclusion that property is not an ancestral property. When such being the case, question of granting any share in favour of the plaintiff also does not arise and taken note of present suit and no issue with respect to maintainability of suit and without seeking the relief of declaration, if there was an issue to that effect to the above decision of the Court, it

¶70

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

would have been comes to the rescue of plaintiff, but sale

¶73

having been made long back and also the property belongs to the 1^st defendant and inturn he sold the property and when the material is not found before the Court that not an ancestral property, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record in paragraph No.40 having taken note of the recitals of the document Ex.P.12 comes to the conclusion that the sale is made for the legal necessity in order to meet the expenses of the children, for the improvement of his business and for the purpose of education of the children and he was in need of the money and the same is also observed in paragraph No.39. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law.

¶74