Sri v Nagaraj Vs Munivenkatamma

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.313 OF 2025 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. V. NAGARAJ, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O DODDAVENKATAPPA, R/AT KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE, BALAMANDE POST, BUDIKOTE HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.

¶8

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

K.V. MANJUNATHA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, R/AT KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE, BALAMANDE POST, BUDIKOTE HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. NARENDRA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MUNIVENKATAMMA,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE THAMMANNA, R/AT NO.22, MADURANAGARA, 2^ND STAGE, SORAHUNASI, VARTHUR HOBLI, K.R.PURAM TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560038.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MUNISWAMAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISWAMI, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶19

NAGARAJ, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶20

SARASWATHAMMA, D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶21

KRISHNA,

¶22

S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶23

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.10, 2^ND STAGE, NEAR DIVYA JYOTHI SCHOOL, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560005.

¶24

MUNIVENKATAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISWAMI, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶25

DEVIKAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶26

KUMAR,

¶27

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO.172, CHANNASANDRA, 3^RD CROSS, OPP. MVG COLLEGE, AKG COLONY, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560067.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO246/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

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

¶38

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶39

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of three items of suit schedule properties is that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of herself and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and all of them are members of the joint family. It is also contended that alienation made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

properties is not binding on her. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and comes to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 3 are the ancestral properties, but declined to grant any relief in respect of item No.2 and the same is a house property and in order to prove the same as ancestral property, nothing is placed on record.

¶44

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of

¶45

the Trial Court, an appeal is filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and particularly taking note of the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, comes to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 3 does exclusively belongs to defendant Nos.1 and 2, who have sold the property. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that in the absence of contrary proof, the evidence placed by the plaintiff holds sufficient to reach the conclusion that suit item Nos.1 and 3 properties exclusively belongs to the

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The fact is that the mother was not alive at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeed to the estate of the mother, but excluding the plaintiff, sale was made and hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶50

The grievance of the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of the material available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that sale was made and entire sale consideration was paid. This Court has to frame substantial question of law as to whether the First Appellate Court was justified in concurring with the finding of the Trial Court and fails to consider the pleadings of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and also to frame the substantial question of law that whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have not proved that they are the bonafide purchasers and hence to admit the appeal.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶52

and considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

First Appellate Court, the properties belongs to the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not in dispute. The mother died intestate is also not in dispute. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and at the time of selling the property, the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed and the appellants have not verified the legal representatives of the mother, to whom the property belongs to at the time of purchasing the property. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, when the mother passed away and died intestate, the daughter also succeeds to the estate of the mother and both the Courts have taken note of the said fact into consideration and hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that that the appellants are not the bonafide purchasers. The alienation made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiff. Considering both the question of fact and question of law, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considered the same. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. However, both the Courts have not taken note of the fact that

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:42268 RSA No. 313 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

when defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property in favour of the appellants, the appellants interest ought to have been protected. Hence, the appellants are given liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court for having purchased the interest of defendant Nos.1 and 2 at the time of sharing the property

¶60

amongst the members of the family.

¶61

With these observations, the second appeal is

¶62

disposed of.

¶63

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶64

MD

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri v. Nagaraj v Munivenkatamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Nagaraj v Munivenkatamma

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

Ms. Maria Alice De Souza Vs Nil

Sri. a. Subbarayappa Vs Smt. S. Sujatha @ S Sujathamma

Sri. Nagaiah @ Nagaraju Vs Sri. K E Basavarajaiah

Sri Chikkanarayanappa Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Ramesh Vs S Bettegowda

Sri. Krishnappa K. R. Vs Sri. Thopaiah