Dismissed¶¶54

Vasudeva Acharya v. Smt. Meera B. Acharya

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025RSA/842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preferential right of co-sharer under partition deed dated 27.10.1994; prohibition on sale to outsiders; right of pre-emption enforceable within one year; limitation Article 97 and Section 3 of the Limitation Act; Ashutosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi AIR 2008 SC 2171; Sections 43 and 61(1) Karnataka Land Reforms Act; Section 100 CPC second appeal against concurrent findings; no substantial question of law; mandatory injunction to vacate suit schedule property; Bagavathi Co-operative Bank loan and hypothecation; Karkala courts (O.S.No.29/2015; R.A.No.22/2018).

What did the court decide?

Since the question of law and the factual aspects, including limitation, were already considered by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the High Court found no ground to admit the second appeal or frame any substantial question of law.

Vasudeva Acharya Vs Smt. Meera B. Acharya — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether, as per the partition deed dated 27.10.1994, preferential right was conferred upon the co-sharer, and whether the sale by the defendants was in violation of the terms of the partition. +2 more

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 842 of 2025, DEC/INJ) under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (O.S.No.29/2015, decree dated 20.06.2018, Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala) and the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.22/2018, decree dated 28.01.2025, Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala). The plaintiff-appellant contended that a partition deed dated 27.10.1994 among the children of Gunda Acharya conferred a preferential right on co-sharers to buy the property and excluded outsiders, and sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate and surrender the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 were placed ex parte; defendant No.5 defended the sale as made for valid consideration to clear the loan advanced by Bagavathi Co-operative Bank to deceased Bhaskar Acharya, the property being hypothecated to that bank. Both courts answered the main issues affirmatively but declined the relief of declaration and dismissed the suit on limitation, applying the one-year period for enforcing a right of pre-emption per Ashutosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi (AIR 2008 SC 2171) and Article 97 of the Limitation Act, the suit having been filed after three years. Counsel urged admission invoking Sections 43 and 61(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Holding that the question of law and factual aspects had been considered by both courts below, the High Court found no ground to admit the appeal or frame substantial questions of law and dismissed the regular second appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.842 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

VASUDEVA ACHARYA

¶11

S/O LATE H. GUNDA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO.13, S.K. NIVAS, 2^ND MAIN DESHABANDHU NAGAR VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. M. JAGANNATH ALVA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. MEERA B. ACHARYA W/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶17

SMT. REKHA B. ACHARYA D/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶18

RAKESH B. ACHARYA S/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶19

SMT. RAKSHA B. ACHARYA D/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT M.B. NIVAS, OPP: KAPIKAD BUS STAND THOKKOTTU POST, ULLAL MANGALURU - 575 017.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SMT. SANDHYA P. BALLAL W/O MR. PRASAD BALLAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SUBODH BALLAL HOUSE MELPETE, HEBRI VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK-576 112.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶30

learned counsel for the appellant.

¶31

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

¶32

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that as per the partition deed dated 27.10.1994 between the children of Gunda Acharya, preferential right was conferred upon the co-sharer to sell the

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

property only to the family members and exclude outsiders and contention was also taken that the defendants illegally sold the property in violation of the partition deed. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and surrender the same to the plaintiff.

¶36

The defendant Nos.1 to 4 remained absent and they have been placed exparte. The defendant No.5 took the contention that suit schedule property was sold by defendant Nos.1 to 4 for valid consideration to clear the loan advanced by Bagavathi Co-operative Bank to deceased Bhaskar Acharya and suit property was hypothecated to suit Bank.

¶37

The Trial Court having considered the material available on record though answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’, particularly in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 taken note of the limitation and while answering issue of limitation in paragraph No.17 and having referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashutosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi reported in AIR 2008 SC 2171, wherein it is categorically held that preferential right is available within 1 year and the present

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

suit is filed after 3 years. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration and dismissed the suit.

¶42

The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.22/2018 and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record in keeping the grounds which have been urged in the appeal formulated the points whether the plaintiff proves that as per partition dated 27.10.1994, preferential right was conferred upon the co-sharer, whether the sale is in violation of terms of partition and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, particularly the answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses and also the document of Ex.P1, taken note of preferential right given in the partition deed and also taken note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court and Article 97 of the Limitation Act is also extracted in paragraph No.25 and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and confirming the same since the document itself is very clear with regard to right of preemption and the prohibition against non-alienation in favour of third party created in the partition deed is in conflict with the mandates of law under Section 43 and Section 61 (1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and also document Ex.P3 dated 27.10.1994 was also brought to notice of this Court. The counsel also would contend that this Court has to frame substantial question of law invoking Section 43 and Section 61(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

¶47

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’ and while considering the law of limitation, in detail discussed with regard to the rights of the parties in paragraph No.17 i.e., Section 3 of the Limitation Act and also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra and period of limitation of 1 year to enforce a right of preemption whether the right is founded on law or general

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

usage or on special contract and the time from which period it begins to run is also extracted and detailed discussion was made in paragraph No.17. In paragraph No.18, pressed into service the judgment of the Apex Court and based on the judgment of the Apex Court itself, the relief of declaration is declined to the appellant/plaintiff and the First Appellate Court also reiterated the same and even extracted the law of limitation, Article 97 of the Limitation Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. When such being the case, when question of law and factual aspects are also considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶51