Karnataka High Court
Vasudeva Acharya vs Smt. Meera B. Acharya on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46738
RSA No. 842 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.842 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. VASUDEVA ACHARYA
S/O LATE H. GUNDA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
NO.13, S.K. NIVAS, 2ND MAIN
DESHABANDHU NAGAR
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 097.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. JAGANNATH ALVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MEERA B. ACHARYA
W/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 2. SMT. REKHA B. ACHARYA
Location: HIGH D/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
KARNATAKA
3. RAKESH B. ACHARYA
S/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. 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.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46738
RSA No. 842 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. 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.
...RESPONDENTS
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.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. 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 -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025 HC-KAR suit is filed after 3 years. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration and dismissed the suit.
6. 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.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. 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.
8. 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46738 RSA No. 842 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62