Dismissed¶76

Smt. Siddalingamma v. Smt. Udayalakshmi

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025RSA/813/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition of ancestral joint family property; daughters' 1/6th share; registered partition deed dated 13.05.2014 between defendant Nos.1 and 4 not binding on non-party daughters; prior sale Ex.D2 for family necessity, purchaser non-joinder immaterial; second appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed without framing substantial question of law; Trial Court O.S.No.306/2014 (decree 13.12.2021); First Appeal R.A.No.5/2022 (judgment 07.02.2025); Doddaballapura; Karnataka High Court; NC: 2025:KHC:24370; reference by appellant to CRP No.470/2023 (Order VII Rule 11(a),(d) CPC).

What did the court decide?

The registered partition deed dated 13.05.2014 entered between defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs, who were not parties to it; the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly came to this conclusion. ¶69

Smt. Siddalingamma Vs Smt. Udayalakshmi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.813 OF 2025 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA WIFE OF LATE DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A HOLDER SRI. D.RAMESH, SON OF LATE DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 206.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI AND

¶14

SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. UDAYALAKSHMI DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA WIFE OF G.V.NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT SABHASH NAGAR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DIVISION NO.1 BEHIND MILK DIARY DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 203.

¶21

SMT. UMA DEVI DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA WIFE OF SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT SABHASH NAGAR DIVISION NO.1 BEHIND MILK DIARY DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 203.

¶22

SMT.B.N.NAGAVENI DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA WIFE OF K.N.MUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.512/2 VINAYAKA NAGARA 4TH WARD, COURT ROAD DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 203.

¶23

SRI.M. NANJAPPA SON OF MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 206.

¶24

SMT. PREMA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA WIFE OF NAGENDRA

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 206.

¶28

SMT.MANGALAGOWRI DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA WIFE OF MUTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT TAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE SAKKAREGOLLALI HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561 204.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶38

This appeal is filed against concurrent finding granting 1/6^th share in favour of the plaintiffs, who are daughters of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also the daughters of defendant No.1.

¶39

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and contend that the partition entered between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶40

The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and mainly contend that suit is filed only with an intention to harass

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

defendant No.4 and the same is bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have alienated Sy.No.215/16 to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas to one Sathish on 21.02.2012 and the said property is not included in the suit and suit schedule properties are also self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 in partition between the family members. Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties by oversight had fallen to the share of defendant No.1, but actually item No.1 of the property was also allotted to defendant No.4 and thereafter, rectification of the same by the defendant No.1 and 4 and they have jointly partitioned through and item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted to defendant No.4 under registered partition and revenue records mutated in the name of defendant No.4 and from the date of partition, the defendant No.4 is in physical possession of the said land and she is cultivating the same and paying the necessary taxes to the concerned Department. The suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and now, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 colluded with each other and filed the suit.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the plaint as well as grounds urged in the written statement framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the GPA holder of defendant No.4 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 and D2.

¶48

The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and partition between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiffs and also taken note of certified copy of sale deed dated 21.12.2012 at Ex.D2 and the very contention of the defendants that property which was sold in favour of one Sathish under sale deed at Ex.D2 on 21.12.2012 was not included in the suit. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that property which was sold on 21.12.2012 is for family necessity with the consent of all the parties and the said contention

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

cannot be accepted. The Trial Court also while considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties devolves upon the father i.e., defendant No.1 vide partition deed dated 15.07.2010 and the same are joint family properties which devolves upon the grand-father Ramaiah and comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 had no exclusive right to execute any deed in favour of defendant No.4 without the consent of his children i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and also comes to the conclusion that partition deed between defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on them and decreed the suit.

¶52

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5/2022. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the points whether the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective and whether impugned judgment requires interference. The First Appellate Court having taken note of the fact that suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties as the

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

same were acquired by the father i.e., defendant No.1 through registered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 which is marked as Ex.P9 and also taken note that though defendant No.1 filed the written statement, but he has stated no objection to allot equal share to the plaintiffs in item Nos.2 to 5. It is also further contended that plaintiffs are no way concerned to item No.1, but he did not choose to substantiate the same by examining himself as witness before the Court. The First Appellate Court has taken note of documents at Exs.P9 and P10 and Ex.P19 is intersay between defendant Nos.1 and 4 and also taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 has not challenged the alienation made by the father long back and the said alienation was made with consent of the plaintiffs and they are not willing to seek any share which is observed in paragraph No.15 of the judgment and comes to the conclusion that the question of including the alienated properties of dismissing the suit for nonjoinder of necessary parties and properties does not arise. The First Appellate Court also taken note of item No.1 is also an ancestral property of defendant Nos.1 and 4, if they have entered into any such partition in terms of Ex.P10 and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

and also taken note of the recital made in Ex.P10 for having made the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant No.1 in terms of the partition of the year 2014 and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶59

Learned for the appellant in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of partition in favour of the plaintiffs and other defendants i.e., 1/6^th share. The counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts have misread the pleadings i.e., both oral and documentary evidence on record and without proper appreciation of evidence on record, committed an error in appreciating the documents of Exs.P1 to P10 and Exs.D1 and D2 and not justified in granting the relief without considering the subsisting right of the appellant over the suit schedule properties i.e., item No.1 of the property. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties though the fact is that alienation is for legal necessity and for the benefits of the members of the family and

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the same as satisfactorily proved by the defendant No.4 and the said contention is also taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. But, failed to consider the earlier sale made by the defendant No.1.

¶64

The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the order passed by this Court in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.470/2023 dated 07.03.2025, wherein this Court allowed the petition and observed that plaint stands rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.

¶65

The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this case is that when already there was sale made in terms of Ex.D2 and the same was not challenged and with regard to the said aspect also, answer was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that said sale is made for family necessity and both the Courts have taken note of Ex.P9 i.e., certified copy of registered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 under which the father had derived title in respect of all the items of the suit schedule properties and also taken note of earlier sale which was also a consented sale and none of the plaintiffs have claimed any share in respect of the properties which was

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

already sold in terms of Ex.D12. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the same was not questioned and non-inclusion of the purchaser as party to the proceedings does not arise. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the subsequent document of registered partition deed dated 13.05.2014 interse between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is also not binding and this document of partition came into existence on 13.05.2014 and the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to the same. Hence, both the Courts comes to the conclusion that the same is not binding on them. When such being the material on record, when they are not parties to the partition deed, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that partition deed dated 13.05.2014 entered between defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. When such finding is given and detailed order has been passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and when the properties are ancestral properties and 1/6^th share has been granted, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025

¶71