Mr Chidananda Vs Mr. T. S. Govindaraju

PASSED IN RA.NO.54/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.71/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

¶24

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶26

CAV JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶28

This is defendants' second appeal.

¶29

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule

¶30

property was the joint family property consisting of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their father Sreerangappa. They partitioned the ancestral and joint family properties under the Panchayath Parkitath dated 18.10.2006. Accordingly, the suit schedule property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, he improved the property by spending huge sums of money, however, due to lack of knowledge, katha of the suit schedule property was not changed in his name. After the death of Sreerangappa and Rangalakshmamma i.e., the parents of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, they got separated with their

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:45781 RSA No. 560 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

shares in the joint family property as per the Panchayat Parikath-Ex.P1. Thereafter, defendant No.1, having no right, title or interest in the schedule property, interfered with the plaintiff's possession. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction.

¶35

Defendants contested the suit by written statement denying all the averments in the plaint.

¶36

The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit in respect of declaration of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. However, granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property.

¶37

On appeal by the defendants, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Regular Appeal.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:45781 RSA No. 560 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.

¶42

I have heard Smt.E.R.Pankajamani, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.S.Venugopal, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶43

The primary contention of the defendants is that both the Courts have failed to consider the documents produced by the defendants i.e., the Gift Deed-Ex.D1 dated 21.10.2011 executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 (son of defendant No.1) in respect of suit schedule property. Further, the Trial Court also erred by relying on the Panchayath Parikath - Ex.P1 dated 18.10.2006 which is an unregistered document. She also contended that, the Trial Court has wrongly held that there was a prior partition dated 20.07.1998 as per Ex.P5 between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their parents. As such, both the Courts have erred in granting permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against the defendants. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45781 RSA No. 560 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that Ex.P5-Panchayat Parikath/Partition dated 20.07.1998 and the subsequent Panchayat Parikath/Partition Deed dated 18.10.2006 - Ex.P1 were proved, since there is categorical admission by DW.1 and DW.2 in respect of execution of those documents and the signature of DW.2 is forthcoming in Ex.P1. According to him, as per Ex.P1, there are in total 4 items and insofar as item No.4 of the property i.e. the suit schedule property is concerned, there is a recital in Ex.P1 that the parents of plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having right to use the same till their life time and after their demise, the plaintiff can use item No.4 i.e. the suit schedule property. In such circumstance, the question of execution of Gift Deed - Ex.D1 by their mother in favour of defendant No.2 does not arise.

¶47

He further contended that the Panchayat Parikath-Ex.P1 finds signature of five witnesses including defendant Nos.1 and 2 and it is also elicited in the evidence of DW.1 that during the life time of his father, the house situated at Tumkuru was gifted

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45781 RSA No. 560 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

to his sister Nethravathi. In such circumstance, it is proved that there was prior partition before Ex.P1-Panchayat Parikath among the plaintiff, defendant and their parents. Hence, though the Trial Court not declared the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, it has rightly granted permanent injunction against the defendants by restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property by answering Issue No.1 that the suit schedule property fallen to the share of the plaintiff under Panchayat Parikath dated 18.10.2006. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, so also to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.

¶52

As could be gathered from records, PWs.2 to 4, who are stated to be the attesting witnesses to the Panchayat ParikathEx.P1 stated that in their evidence that on 18.10.2006 the said Parikath was executed between the plaintiff, defendant No.1

¶53

and their father Sreerangappa and the suit property has been allotted to the share of the plaintiff after the demise of his

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:45781 RSA No. 560 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

parents. They have identified their signatures on Ex.P1. Interestingly, DW.1 deposed that in the year 1998, the landed properties of their family have been divided between himself, defendant No.1 and his parents and the same was reduced into writing as per Panchayat Parikath-Ex.P5. He also deposed that in view of the said partition, his sister Nethravathi had been gifted 7 Acres 13 guntas of land by virtue of the Gift Deed executed by his father. D.W.1 has also admitted the Panchayat Parikath dated 18.10.2006 as per Ex.P1 and identified his signature and his mother's signature on Ex.P1. Further, admitted that, as per the say of his father himself, his brother was enjoying a godown and a vacant site separately and his mother was residing along with the plaintiff.

¶58

On perusal of Ex.P1, there is a recital that the suit schedule property i.e. item No.4 allotted to the share of parents of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and after their demise, the plaintiff will be owner of the said property. Ex.P1-Panchayath Parikath was sent for handwriting expert and it was established that defendant No.1 is the signatory to Ex.P1. In such circumstance, in view of the recital in Ex.P1, the mother of the

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:45781 RSA No. 560 of 2019

¶60

8 -

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

plaintiff had no absolute right to alienate the said property by way of gift in favour of defendant No.2. As such, the Trial Court has rightly held that the Gift Deed - Ex.D1 is not proved as per law. In such circumstance, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that Ex.P1 is proved and in view of the interference of the defendants with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, rightly granted injunction against the defendants. Hence, in my view, there is absolutely no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶63

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶64

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mr Chidananda v. Mr. T. S. Govindaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chidananda v. Mr. T. S. Govindaraju

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. Ganesh Somanath Somani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Malligamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Balakrishna Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. Murugesh Vs Sri. Yankanaika

K H Udayakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Abraham Cutinho Vs the State of Karnataka