Disposed¶53

Smt.M.Suganthy v. Sri. J. Raju

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2025RSA/187/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, RSA No. 187 of 2025 (DEC), decided 17.11.2025 by H.P.Sandesh J.: second appeal disposed of at admission; no substantial question of law framed against concurrent findings dismissing declaration suit over suit property sold by Govindamma and Prakash to respondent under Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 21.05.2013; liberty to appellant (through GPA holder) to agitate all contentions in pending partition suit; Section 100 CPC; Section 23 Registration Act; appellant Smt. M. Suganthy; respondent Sri. J. Raju.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal disposed of at the admission stage without framing a substantial question of law; liberty granted to the appellant to raise all contentions in the pending suit for partition, with the courts below' reasoning not to prejudice that suit. ¶53

Smt.M.Suganthy Vs Sri. J. Raju — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.187 OF 2025 (DEC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. M. SUGANTHY, W/O. SRI. C. VENKATESHAPPA, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.205, 4^TH CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶11

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SRI. C. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O. LATE RAMANNA, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.205, 4^TH CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU AND SMT. B.V.GIRIJA, ADVOCATES)

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. J. RAJU, S/O JAYASEELAN, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.86, NEW MODEL HOUSE, COROMANDEL, KGF – 563 118.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. C. PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.188/23 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.156/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, it is contended that her grandmother/Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma was the owner of the suit property having acquired the same under the sale deed in the year 1996 from Asadi Muniga. The said Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma was in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property and paying the tax and all the records standing in her name. She died leaving behind

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

son Meshak and the said Meshak and his wife Govindamma also died leaving behind three children i.e., Smt. Annamery, Smt. Suganthy (herself) and Sri M.Prakash. The said Annamery and Prakash died leaving behind only herself to succeed the estate of Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma. She is having 1/3^rd share in suit property. But, her brother Prakash and mother Smt.Govindamma created the document and illegally sold the suit property in favour of the defendant under a sale deed dated 03.06.2013. The said sale deed is not valid in law and violates Section 23 of Registration Act for non-presentation of document within four months from the date of its execution and based on the said illegal sale deed, got changed the khatha in the name of the defendant. The said sale deed and mutation are illegal and obtained the document in order to deny the right of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

¶32

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement. It is contended that Smt.Salamma was absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of Smt.Salamma, the suit property was devolved to her son

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Meshak. After the death of Meshak, the suit property was devolved to Smt.Govindamma and his only son Prakash. During the lifetime of Smt.Govindamma and Prakash, they had offered to sell the suit property and after verification only, the defendant agreed to purchase the suit property and purchased the same on 03.06.2013 and from that date he is in possession of the suit schedule property and revenue documents also stands in his name and hence, the plaintiff is not having any right over the suit schedule property.

¶37

The Trial Court considering the pleadings of both the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, dismissed the suit on the ground that P.W.1 has not produced any document to show that she is the granddaughter and daughter of Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma, Meshak and Smt.Govindamma. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she categorically admits that she has not produced any document to show the relationship with Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma, Meshak and Smt.Govindamma as rightly contended by the defendant. The defendant has purchased the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

property from Smt.Govindamma and Prakash in terms of Ex.P.20 and Ex.D.1 similar sale deeds and in possession and got changed the revenue records as per Exs.D.2 to 5. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that in the absence of relationship with the vendor of the defendant, how can this Court consider the case of the plaintiff that she has got 1/3^rd share in the suit property and hence not accepted the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record, formulated several points and answered all the points in the negative in coming to the conclusion that as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, no document other than a Will shall be accepted if it is presented after four months. The First Appellate Court also taken note of that in Ex.D.1 sale deed, the date has been wrongly typed as 27.05.2012 and the MR clearly indicates that there is mistake in the date in the first line of sale deed and the said document has been executed on 21.05.2013 and not in 2012. Considering

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the material on record, when the documents are produced before the Court with regard to the sale deed is executed, which confers the title, an observation is made that the plaintiff has already filed a suit for partition and she may seek that, sale deed to an extent of her share is not binding and she may claim her share in the said purchased property and dismissed the appeal.

¶46

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶47

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material available on record. However, the learned counsel during the course of argument would submit that the First Appellate Court made an observation with regard to the pendency of the suit for partition and the plaintiff can agitate the same in the said suit with regard to the sale deed is concerned that the sale deed to an extent of her share is not binding and in view of the said observation, liberty may be given to the appellant to raise all contentions in the suit for partition, which is pending. The learned counsel submits that

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:47152 RSA No. 187 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court shall not come in the way of considering the said suit.

¶52

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted and having considered the material available on record, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. The liberty is given to the appellant to raise all the contentions in the suit for partition. The reasoning given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court shall not come in the way of consideration of the claim made in the partition suit.

¶53

With these observations, the second appeal is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶55

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Smt.M.Suganthy v. Sri. J. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Suganthy v. Sri. J. Raju

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

Sri. Ajaya D K Vs Sri K S Dushyanthraj

Sri Vasu Sherigar Vs Smt Gulabi Sherigrthi

Vasudeva Acharya Vs Smt. Meera B. Acharya

Smt. Lalitha Bai Vs Sri. Durgoji Rao @ Durgappa

Sri.R. Shankar Vs Sri.S. Hastimal Jain

K Sheik Ahamed Vs Mr Hasanabba