Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ajaya D K vs Sri K S Dushyanthraj on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46928
RSA No. 149 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.149 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. AJAYA D.K.,
5S/O K.B. DUSHYANTHRAJ
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2345
2 STAGE, 4TH MAIN
NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE CITY-577001
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SRI. K.S. DUSHYANTHRAJ
S/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. K. BHEEMAPPA
S/O K. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDENTS OF
SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577005.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46928
RSA No. 149 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
W/O MURIGENDRAPPA MAHALINGAPPARA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O KANDAGAL VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577514
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. KIRAN KUMAR D.K.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577005
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO158/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAGERE,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DAVANAGERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court claiming to be the son of 1st -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant that he is under the care and custody of his mother Smt.Manjula. The suit property fell to the share of the 1st defendant in a family partition and thereafter, the Khata of the suit property was also changed in the name of the 1st defendant. The suit schedule property is a joint family property. Further, pleaded that the plaintiff and his mother Manjula had filed a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC and the said petition was allowed and granted maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and plaintiff on 01.06.2011. The defendant in order to avoid right of maintenance only he had created a sale deed in the year 1999 and also contended that a Panchayath was held in the year 2003 and it was only a nominal sale deed and not the sale. When the demand was made to share the property, he did not agree to demand and hence without any other alternative relief, he has filed the suit for the relief of partition and also contend that the sale made is not binding. The defendant No.1 appeared and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR filed a written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and admitted the relationship and defendant No.1 already married Smt.Premleela in the year 1993 itself and in the said wedlock, 4th defendant is born. It is contended that Manjula led a happy marital life and as the 1st defendant had age old mother, Manjula was not ready to look after his mother and Panchayath was held on 05.01.2003 in the presence of Shivacharya Swamiji of Sanehalli Matha and ended in divorce of defendant No.1 and Manjula, then 1st defendant filed a petition for Constitution of Conjugal Rights in M.C.No.112/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere and Smt.Manjula refused to come and join the company of 1st defendant and he withdrew the petition. It is also his contention that 1st defendant in order to meet the expenses of the education of his children and also to improve the maize business, sold suit property to his uncle K.Bheemappa for sale consideration amount of Rs.76,000/- on 24.11.1999. It is also his contention that in view of the sale deed -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR executed by the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant was in peaceful and enjoyment of the suit property till 29.09.2009 and thereafter, 2nd defendant executed the sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant. It is further contended that the plaintiff and the other son of 1st defendant Premakiran were also parties to the sale deed dated 24.11.1999 and they were represented by their father and the 1st defendant as natural guardian on behalf of the minor. The defendant No.2 having entered appearance and he also filed separate written statement re-iterating the averments of the written statement of the 1st defendant. The defendant No.3 also filed separate written statement, prior to the marriage, the 1st defendant was already married to Smt.Premleela on 25.02.1993 and in the said wedlock, 4th defendant is born and similar set of facts are pleaded by the 3rd defendant also.
3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of both plaintiff and defendants, framed the issues. In view of the defence of the 2nd defendant that he is a -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR bonafide purchaser, he sold the suit schedule property to 3rd defendant and in lieu of the said defence, plaintiff also pleaded that the said sale deed dated 24.11.1999 is nominal sale deed executed in favour of 2nd defendant. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence did not accept the case of the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion that 2nd defendant was a bonafide purchaser. He also inturn sold the property long back in the year 2009 and also taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 though he pleaded that already executed the sale deed, but he says in his evidence that it was only a security document and the same is discussed in paragraph No.27 and also in paragraph No.41 taken note of sale was also made on behalf of the minors as well as other family members and hence, dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.158/2023. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR the appeal memo, framed the point for consideration whether the Trial Court has committed an error in concluding that suit schedule property is not a joint family property of plaintiff and first defendant by answering Issue No.1 and also additional Issue No.1 together and whether the Trial Court committed a glaring error in concluding that sale dated 24.11.1999 executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant to meet his legal necessity and whether the defendant No.2 and 3 are the bonafide purchasers for the valuable consideration and whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession.
5. The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the material on record and also taken note of P.W.1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he sold the property in favour of second defendant to meet the expenditure towards the health of his second wife, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR education of his son and towards development of the property and there is no any pleadings in the written statement regarding incurring expenditure towards the health and also improvement of his business and for purpose of children education is also taken note of and the sale is for the legal necessity. In paragraph No.37 to 43 of the judgment, in detail discussed that sale was made for the benefit of the family and hence, answered all the points as negative.
6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court and the main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that as on the date of sale of the property, the plaintiff was 2 years old and Appellate Court also not exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and both Courts failed to appreciate the evidence available on record, particularly Ex.P.12 by defendant No.1 in favour of 2nd defendant and the same is not for legal necessity, but, Court comes to the conclusion that it is for legal necessity -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR and hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the reasoning particularly taking note of the pleadings of the plaintiff, it is very clear that property was sold in the year 1999 itself and suit is filed in the year 2012. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that immediately after attaining the majority only, suit is filed. The fact that records available on record discloses that there is a dispute between the husband and wife and also maintenance petition was filed and maintenance was also ordered in favour of the plaintiff as well as his mother and parties are having the knowledge about the sale of the property and apart from that though D.W.1 contend that document of sale deed is only a security document and hence, it is clear that in one breath says that the property was sold for the legal necessity and also received the sale consideration of Rs.76,000/- in the year 1999 itself. Apart from that sale
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR deed document Ex.P.12 clearly discloses the prerequisites for a valid sale and he had sold the property not only on his behalf and also the family of himself and the same is also for legal necessity and inturn subsequently, the 2nd defendant also sold the property in favour of the 3rd defendant. The Trial Court having assessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that sale transaction was taken place in 1999 and thereafter, second sale was also made in the year 2009 itself in favour of the 3rd defendant and properties are also exchanged between the subsequent purchasers. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record while answering Issue No.1, comes to the conclusion that property is not an ancestral property. When such being the case, question of granting any share in favour of the plaintiff also does not arise and taken note of present suit and no issue with respect to maintainability of suit and without seeking the relief of declaration, if there was an issue to that effect to the above decision of the Court, it
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR would have been comes to the rescue of plaintiff, but sale having been made long back and also the property belongs to the 1st defendant and inturn he sold the property and when the material is not found before the Court that not an ancestral property, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record in paragraph No.40 having taken note of the recitals of the document Ex.P.12 comes to the conclusion that the sale is made for the legal necessity in order to meet the expenses of the children, for the improvement of his business and for the purpose of education of the children and he was in need of the money and the same is also observed in paragraph No.39. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46928 RSA No. 149 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Second Appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56