Dismissed¶68

Smt Gowramma v. Sri Oomar Farooq

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2025RSA/1527/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 1527 of 2015 (PAR); decided 10.09.2025 by Justice E.S. Indiresh; plaintiff-daughter's second appeal against reversal of her partition decree; family necessity alienation by kartha under Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995; finality of prior declaration-and-injunction decree O.S.No.59/1997; proviso to Section 6 Hindu Succession Act saving pre-20.12.2004 registered alienations; collusion of defendant Nos.1-4 with plaintiff; no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; re-appreciation under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC; appeal dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

None; the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, leaving the First Appellate Court's Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015 undisturbed. ¶68

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri Oomar Farooq — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, leaving the First Appellate Court's Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015 undisturbed.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether any acceptable grounds exist to formulate a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC so as to entertain this Regular Second Appeal. +3 more

¶68

Court's answer

No acceptable grounds exist to formulate a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC, and accordingly the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

The sale of the property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 was for family necessities, and the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 has reached finality.

¶61

Key takeaways

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not contest the matter on merits but supported the plaintiff's case, which indicates that they colluded with the plaintiff for decreeing the suit.ratio¶61
Since the property was disposed of by the kartha prior to 20.12.2004, the question of availability of joint family property in 2005 does not arise; the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act saves the earlier dispossession through registered documents prior to 20.12.2004, and as such the impugned Judgment and Decree cannot be found fault with.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit by daughter against father's 1995 sale to a third-party purchaser dismissed at the admission stage of the Regular Second Appeal. The single judge held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC: the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995 recited that defendant No.1 (father/kartha) sold the suit property to defendant No.5 for family maintenance and legal necessities; a prior decree in O.S.No.59/1997 for declaration and injunction in the purchaser's favour over the same property had reached finality; defendant Nos.1 to 4, having supported the plaintiff without contesting on merits, were found to have colluded with her; and the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act saves alienation through registered documents prior to 20.12.2004, so no joint family property remained available in 2005. The First Appellate Court's re-appreciation of evidence under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, reversing the Trial Court's decree, was upheld.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2015 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O RAJANNA D/O LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.80, KURUBARAHALLI, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 086.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. OOMAR FAROOQ SON OF ABDUL SHAKOOR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.315, 8^TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶15

LENKAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶16

RANGAMMA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶17

RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA SON OF LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶21

SRI. NARASIMHAIAH SON OF LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU -560 064.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. THIMMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2015 PASSED IN R.A. NO.94/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.552/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶26

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015 in R.A.No.94/2013 on the file of I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013 in O.S.No.552/1996, on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶33

The facts in nutshell as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the parties for adjudication of this appeal are, that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 is the purchaser of the schedule property from defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that, her father Lenkappa (defendant No.1) has sold schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 without the consent of the co-parceners in the joint family including the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.552/1996 before the Trial Court.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

On service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 4 entered appearance. However, they supported the case of the plaintiff. The defendant No.5 has filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of defendant No.5 that, defendant No.5 had purchased the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995 and defendant No.1 has sold the schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 for family necessity and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶37

Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish her case, plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and produced six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.5 was examined as D.W.1, and 15 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D15. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013, decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5 has preferred R.A.No.94/2013 before the First Appellate Court

¶38

and the same was resisted by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015, allowed the appeal, consequently set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013 in O.S.No.552/1996 and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

¶42

Sri. N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the Trial Court has rightly answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative, holding that defendant No.5 has not proved that sale of suit schedule property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 for family necessity and the said aspect was not considered by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. Nextly, learned counsel submitted that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 is not binding on the plaintiff as the said suit is in respect of the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the schedule property and therefore, contended that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Per contra, Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A., learned counsel

¶46

appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶47

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, it is necessary to extract the genealogy tree which is as under:

LENKAPPA (D1)

| | RANGAMMA (D2)

|----------------------- |------------------------| HANUMANTHAPPA NARASIMHAIAH GOWRAMMA (D3) (D4) (PLAINTIFF)

¶53

Perusal of the genealogy tree would indicate that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 & 4 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 has purchased the suit schedule

¶54

property from defendant No.1 as per the registered Sale Deed

¶55

dated 25.05.1995. It is also to be noted as per in the recitals

¶56

of the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995, it is stated that

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

defendant No.1 was in need of money for maintaining the family and for legal necessities and as such sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5.

¶61

It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Courts below that defendant No.5 has filed O.S.No.59/1997 against defendant No.1 seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the very same schedule property which came to be decreed in favour of defendant No.5 and same has reached finality. In that view of the matter, since the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 has reached finality and that apart, the sale of the property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 was for family necessities and it is forthcoming from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, wherein the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not contested the matter on merits but have supported the case of the plaintiff that itself would indicate that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have colluded with the plaintiff for decreeing the suit. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Court below that when the property has

¶62

been disposed prior to 20.12.2004 by the kartha of the family, the question of availability of joint family property as during

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

2005 does not arise in respect of the property sold in favour of

¶66

the defendant No.5 and in fact, proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, saves the earlier dispossession of the property through registered documents prior to 20.12.2004, and as such the impugned Judgment and Decree cannot be found fault with.

¶67

In that view of the matter, the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by interfering with the finding recorded by the Trial Court, holding that the Trial Court has misconstrued the entire case of the plaintiff and also ignored the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.59/1997, which reached finality.

¶68

In that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable grounds to formulate substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶69

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶70

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether any acceptable grounds exist to formulate a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC so as to entertain this Regular Second Appeal.¶68
The court held
No acceptable grounds exist to formulate a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC, and accordingly the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.ratio¶68
2.
Whether the sale of the suit schedule property by defendant No.1 (father/kartha) in favour of defendant No.5 under the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995 was for family necessity and binding on the plaintiff and other family members.medium confidence¶60
The court held
The sale of the property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 was for family necessities, and the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 has reached finality.ratio¶61
3.
Whether the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997, whereby defendant No.5 obtained declaration and injunction over the same schedule property and which reached finality, operates against the plaintiff's partition claim.medium confidence¶61
The court held
The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by interfering with the Trial Court's finding, the Trial Court having misconstrued the entire case of the plaintiff and ignored the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997, which reached finality.ratio¶67
4.
Whether, the property having been disposed of by the kartha prior to 20.12.2004, any joint family property remained available in 2005, and whether the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act saves the earlier alienation through registered documents.medium confidence¶66
The court held
Since the property was disposed of by the kartha prior to 20.12.2004, the question of availability of joint family property in 2005 does not arise; the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act saves the earlier dispossession through registered documents prior to 20.12.2004, and as such the impugned Judgment and Decree cannot be found fault with.ratio¶66

Smt Gowramma v. Sri Oomar Farooq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Sri Oomar Farooq

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

M/S Venkata Royale Homes Vs Smt Bayyamma

M/S Virginia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Paradise Food Court Private Limited

Arvind Lifefstyle Brands Limited Vs M/S Ospack Apparels

Mr Alankara Pandian Santhana Swamy Vs M/S Sri Sai Food Zone LLP

Mr M Sundara Murthy Vs M/S Segull Petro Park

Sri. B M Narayanaswamy Vs Sri. Gangulappa