B.P. Veeresh Vs Smt. Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

B.P. Veeresh Vs Smt. Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the sale dated 15.12.1959 executed by grand-father Mallappa in favour of Nagamma (Ex.P2) is fraudulent, void, fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

There is no ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law, since both Courts have taken note of question of fact and question of law and the First Appellate Court reassessed the material on record; accordingly the appeal was disposed of at the admission stage.

Key takeaways

The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the First Appellate Court ought not to have confirmed the Trial Court judgment merely because it concluded that the suit is not barred by limitation cannot be accepted.ratio¶60
The First Appellate Court passed a well reasoned order while confirming the Trial Court judgment, even though it did not agree with the Trial Court's reason regarding limitation, having taken note of the nature of the document executed by the mother as well as said Mallappa (Ex.P2) and of the fact that when the father had filed the earlier suit he excluded the suit schedule property with knowledge of the sale and it was not questioned therein.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P.SANDESH, J.), decision dated 16.10.2025 — REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.172 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ), under Section 100 of CPC, by B.P. Veeresh and three co-appellants (Nos.2 to 4 represented through power of attorney holder B.P. Veeresh; counsel Harish Kumar M.S.) against Rathnamma and seven other respondents, DISMISSED at the admission stage without framing any substantial question of law. The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2023 in R.A. No.67/2019 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga), which had confirmed the decree dated 27.04.2019 in O.S. No.4/2014 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura) where all issues were answered negative except Issue No.3 concluding the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs' claim was that the sale dated 15.12.1959 executed by their grand-father Mallappa in favour of Nagamma is fraudulent, void and not binding. The First Appellate Court, though concluding the suit was not time-barred, confirmed the Trial Court judgment taking note of the Ex.P2 sale deed jointly executed by Gangamma (wife of Basappa) and Mallappa for joint family necessities including repayment of a loan from Issuru Society, and of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs' father (noted as O.S.No.170/2023) in which the suit schedule property was excluded. Held: the contention that confirmation was improper merely because of the divergent limitation view cannot be accepted; both Courts having taken note of questions of fact and law, there was no ground to admit the appeal or frame a substantial question of law.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.172 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

B.P. VEERESH S/O B. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

B.P. SHIVAKUMAR S/O D.B. PARAMESHWRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TLAUK-577 427.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. B.P. GAYATHRI D/O D.B. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.50, 5^TH CROSS DEVARASANDRA, K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560 036.

SMT. B.P.KAVITHA D/O D.B.PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O TUDANUR VILLAGE SAMANAHALLI POST ANAVATTI HOBLI SORABA TALUK-577 429.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - B.P. VEERESH

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE K PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

BYRESHA S/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

KISHOR S/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

SMT. POORNIMA D/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

SMT. HEMA D/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

K. SHUBHAPPA S/O BORAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

K. RAVI S/O BORAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

K. PALAKSHAPPA S/O BORAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

CHIKKAJOGIHALLI POST ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A. NO.67/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.4/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPUA.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

learned counsel for the appellants

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs

before the Trial Court is that the sale dated 15.12.1959 executed by their grand-father Mallappa in favour of Nagamma is fraudulent, void and not binding on them.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and denied other averments averred in the plaint.

The Trial Court given an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and also considering documents Exs.P1 to P14 and Exs.D1 to D40, answered all the issues as ‘negative’. But, while answering issue No.3 comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation.

The said finding is challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.67/2019. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been set out in the appeal, formulated the point and even considering the application filed for amendment as well as additional evidence and so also the sale deed dated 15.12.1959, formulated the points whether the said sale deed is illegal, void, fraudulent and fabricated, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and possession and whether it requires interference.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

The First Appellate Court having considered the pleadings, written statement as well as reasoning of the Trial Court, even taken note of the fact that property was originally purchased in the year 1930 by Rudrappa as per Ex.P1-sale deed which has been narrated in paragraph No.23 and also taken note of the fact that subsequently, property was sold in the year 1959 and when the disputed sale deed was executed, even Basappa was no more and his wife Gangamma has succeeded him, so also, his another brother Mallappa. It is Gangamma, wife of Basappa and Mallappa, who have jointly executed the sale deed of the year 1959 in favour of mother of defendant No.1-Smt. Nagamma and the said sale deed at Ex.P2 was also taken note of.

The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.24 observed that in Ex.P2-sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that since they have borrowed the loan from Issuru Society by mortgaging the said property and they require the amount to repay the loan, they jointly sold the suit property in favour of Nagamma. So, for the joint family necessities and to repay the loan borrowed from Issuru Society, Mallappa and Gangamma,

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

who are eldest members of two branches have jointly sold the property. The First Appellate Court also observed that suit is filed by the plaintiff’s father earlier in O.S.No.170/2023 in paragraph No.25 and in paragraph No.26, in detail taken note of the fact that when the father had filed the suit earlier, excluded the suit schedule property and also taken note of the fact that there was no reason for the plaintiffs’ father to file the suit only in respect of 1 acre of land by admitting the sale executed by his mother and detailed order was passed. However, taken note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court with regard to the fact that suit is barred by limitation is concerned.

No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to notice of this Court that when the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation, ought not to have confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and the said contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. Even though the First Appellate Court comes to an other conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation, the First Appellate Court taken note

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

of the nature of the document executed by the mother as well as said Mallappa i.e., Ex.P2 and also taken note of the fact that when the father had filed the suit earlier, excluded the suit schedule property having the knowledge about the sale and the same was not questioned in the earlier suit and well reasoned order has been passed by the First Appellate Court while confirming the judgment, even though not agreed with the reason of the Trial Court regarding the limitation is concerned.

When such being the case and well reasoned order has been passed by the First Appellate Court considering the material available on record and reassessed both oral and documentary evidence as well as pleadings and right of the parties, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law and both the Courts have taken note of question of fact and question of law. Hence, there is no ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORDER

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32