Karnataka High Court
Ramlingappa S/O Sanna Sabanna Kakalwar vs Basamma D/O Siddappa Kakalwar Since ... on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
RSA No. 200146 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200146 OF 2014
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMLINGAPPA S/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
2. DODDA SABANNA S/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
3. SABAMMA W/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
4. RAJAPPA S/O NARSAPPA
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 5. BUGGAPPA S/O NARASAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. ASHAPPA S/O SAYANNA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
ALL R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. AND DIST. GULBARGA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S. B. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
RSA No. 200146 of 2014
HC-KAR
1. BASSAMMA D/O SIDDAPPA KAKALWAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
A. NARASAMMA W/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & HOUSEHOLD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER
LR RESPONDENT NO.1(B)
B. SAVITRAMMA W/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH ARE R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR.
2. BUGGAMMA D/O SIDDAPPA KAKALWAR
SINCE DECD. BY LRS.
A. AYYAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA NEERATI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR-585321.
B. BHAWANT S/O SABANNA MADHAWARDAVARU,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR-585321.
NOW R/O PERMANENTLY AT
GANDHI NAGAR, HYDRABAD CITY (A.P)-500001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE R1(B);
V/O DATED 23.07.2024 NOTICE TO R2(A) & R2(B)
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO.21/2012
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
RSA No. 200146 of 2014
HC-KAR
YADGIRI, AS FAR AS IN GRANTING THE RELIEF OF
DECLARATION; AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.30/2003 BY THE COURT OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE, YADGIR DECREEING THE SUIT TO THE
PLAINTIFF FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION; BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST THROUGH OUT AND
THEREBY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This appeal is by the unsuccessful defendant No.2/subsequent transferee claiming title through defendant No.1 assailing the concurrent judgments and decree rendered by the Courts below, wherein, both the Courts having declared that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the joint owners, have granted the relief of partition to the plaintiffs, declaring that the sale deed obtained by defendant No.2 through defendant No.1 is not binding on plaintiffs' joint half share in the suit schedule property. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR Accordingly, the suit was decreed holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their equal share held by their father in the suit schedule property. Consequently, defendant No.2/subsequent transferee was restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed.
2. For the sake of brevity, rank of the parties is referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The family tree is as under:
Tammappa Hanmanthu (died) Siddappa (dieed) Narasappa (died) Timmappa (Deft-1) Bassamma Buggamma (Plaint. No.1) (Plaint. No.2) Mallamma (died) -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. The plaintiffs, who are the daughters of one Siddappa, the second son of Tammappa, instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that they are the joint owners of the suit schedule property along with defendant No.1. Consequentially, they sought a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 13.10.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void and not binding upon their share. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.2 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land, asserting their right to joint possession.
5. Upon service of summons, both defendants entered appearance and filed a common written statement, wherein they categorically denied the plaintiffs' claim of joint ownership. Defendant No.1 specifically contended that the suit land had been allotted to his father, Hanmanthu, in a prior family partition. It was further averred that upon the death of his father, the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR property was mutated in his name, thereby making him the absolute owner with full right to alienate the property. On this premise, defendant No.1 justified the sale in favour of defendant No.2, asserting that the same was a valid and lawful conveyance. The defendants, therefore, sought dismissal of the suit.
6. The parties went to trial and adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, particularly Exhibits P1 to P6, the Trial Court observed that the plea of defendant No.1 namely, that the suit property was allotted to his father Hanmanthu was unsupported by any documentary material. The Court noted that, on the contrary, the records revealed that the suit property was originally allotted to Narasappa in a family partition. After Narasappa's demise, the property was inherited by his widow Mallamma, who also died issueless. In that backdrop, the Trial Court held that the property reverted to the two surviving branches of the family namely, the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR branch of Siddappa and the branch of Hanmanthu. Consequently, the Trial Court concluded that the subsequent mutation in favour of defendant No.1, effected after the death of Mallamma, did not confer any exclusive ownership upon him, nor could he assert that the property was allotted solely to his father.
7. Having recorded a finding that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were joint owners of the suit land, the Trial Court moulded the relief and decreed the suit partly by declaring that defendant No.1 had no authority to alienate the entire extent of the property in favour of defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 13.10.2003 executed for a consideration of Rs.48,000/-. It was accordingly held that the said sale deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs to the extent of their half share in the suit property. And accordingly granted half share in the suit land.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR
8. Defendant No.2, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. It is significant to note that while preferring the appeal, defendant No.2 did not implead the legal representatives of defendant No.1, who had since expired. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court found no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The said concurrent findings are now assailed in this second appeal.
9. This Court, by order dated 27.06.2014, admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:
(i) Whether the law of limitation would apply in so far as the claim for partition and declaration of their share by Class-II heirs?-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR
(ii) Whether they are required to specifically question any alienation made prior to the suit if there was a pre-existing right?
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.
11. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, and the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below while decreeing the plaintiffs' suit. The records have been meticulously examined in the backdrop of the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of this appeal.
Regarding Substantial Question of Law No.1:
12. A close scrutiny of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 reveals that no plea of limitation was ever raised by him in the pleadings before the Trial Court. The core defence advanced by defendant No.1 was that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR the suit land had been allotted to his father, Hanmanthu, in a family partition, and upon his father's demise, the property devolved upon him as a Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act. The case of limitation was neither pleaded nor established.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.2, however, sought to advance an argument that since the name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the record of rights pertaining to the suit land immediately after the death of Mallamma in the year 1988, the same constituted an act of ouster, and therefore, the plaintiffs' suit, filed much later, ought to have been barred by limitation.
14. This contention, in the considered view of this Court, is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. Mere mutation of the name of one co-sharer or co-heir in the revenue records does not, by itself, constitute ouster or establish exclusive possession. Mutation entries are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer title nor extinguish the lawful rights of other co-heirs. To constitute ouster, there must be clear, unequivocal, and hostile acts on the part of one co-owner, which are inconsistent with the joint ownership of others, coupled with actual physical dispossession of the co-heirs and an assertion of exclusive ownership to their knowledge.
15. In the present case, there are no pleadings whatsoever alleging such acts of ouster or exclusive possession by defendant No.1. On the contrary, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the suit property originally belonged to Narasappa, and upon his demise, the same was inherited by his widow, Mallamma, who died issueless. Consequently, the property reverted to the two surviving branches of the family, namely, the branch of Siddappa and the branch of Hanmanthu, both of whom were Class-II heirs entitled to succeed to the estate of Mallamma, who had died intestate.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR
16. It is also relevant to note that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Siddappa. Considering the prevailing social circumstances, it cannot be overlooked that married daughters often reside away from the ancestral home and may not be aware of subsequent mutations effected unilaterally by male members of the family. Hence, such unilateral revenue entries cannot be construed as hostile assertion of ownership or as creating a cause of action for limitation to run.
17. The records, including Exhibits P1 to P6, categorically indicate that the property stood in the name of Narasappa, and thereafter in the name of Mallamma, thereby negating the defence plea that the land was ever allotted to Hanmanthu. The subsequent entry in the name of defendant No.1 after the death of Mallamma was thus without legal foundation and could not extinguish the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs in the suit property.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no plea of limitation or ouster has been made out on the basis of the pleadings or evidence on record. Consequently, Substantial Question of Law No.1 does not arise for consideration in this appeal and is accordingly answered in the negative. Regarding substantial question of law No.2:
19. Before this Court proceeds further deems it fit to cull out the prayer column of t he plaint, more particularly, prayer No.2, the same is extracted, which reads as under:
"2) It is further declare that, the registered sale bearing document No.2188/2002-03, dated 13.01.2003, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and not binding on plaintiffs."
20. On a careful reading of Prayer No.2 in the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs have sought a
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR declaration that the registered sale deed dated 13.10.2003, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, is null and void and not binding upon them. The foundation of this relief rests on the assertion that the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Siddappa, have an independent and legitimate share in the suit schedule property. The said right flows from their status as co- sharers in the ancestral estate, representing the branch of Siddappa, who was one of the two sons of the original propositus, Tammappa.
21. It is thus manifest that defendant No.1, who represents the other branch of the family through Hanmanthu, could not have lawfully conveyed the entire extent of the suit land to defendant No.2, as his rights were confined only to his undivided share. Any alienation made by one co-owner in respect of the entire joint property, without the consent of the other co-owners, can at best operate only to the extent of his own share and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR cannot divest the lawful ownership of the remaining co- sharers.
22. The plaintiffs, therefore, were justified in seeking a declaration that the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was not binding on their legitimate share. The prayer in the plaint, when read in its proper context, clearly indicates that the plaintiffs were not seeking to avoid the entire sale deed in its entirety, but were confining their challenge only to the extent of their undivided interest in the property. The expression "null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs"
used in the plaint must, therefore, be construed in a restricted sense, as a challenge to the sale deed only to the extent of the plaintiffs' share, and not as an absolute declaration invalidating the sale altogether.
23. The Trial Court, while moulding the relief, rightly interpreted the plaintiffs' prayer in this light and held that the sale deed dated 13.10.2003 was not binding
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR on the plaintiffs to the extent of their half share, while leaving the sale intact insofar as the share of defendant No.1 was concerned. The First Appellate Court has also concurred with this reasoning and affirmed that the declaration sought was limited in nature and wholly justified.
24. In this view of the matter, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.2 that the plaintiffs had not sought an absolute declaration against the entire sale deed is without merit. The relief sought and granted by the Courts below squarely aligns with settled principles governing co-ownership and alienation by one co-sharer.
25. Accordingly, this Court finds that Substantial Question of Law No.2 does not arise for consideration in the present appeal, and the same is answered in the negative.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014 RSA No. 200146 of 2014 HC-KAR
26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Learned counsel Sri Sandeep Vijayakumar Patil is permitted to file vakalath in the office within two weeks.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SRT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8 CT:SI