Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Nagappa Sadalapur And Ors vs Vidyasagar S/O Nagappa Sadalapur And ... on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269
RSA No. 200369 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200369 OF 2014
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SANTOSH S/O NAGAPPA SADALAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O CHIK-BEVANUR
TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR
2. LALITA D/O NAGAPPA SADALAPUR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK
R/O 125, RAILWAY LINE KADADI CHAWL
STATION ROAD, SOLAPUR, DIST: SOLAPUR.
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
Digitally signed 3. REKHA D/O NAGAPPA SADALAPUR,
by RENUKA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
Location: HIGH C/O VIJAY DHOLE R/O 125, RAILWAY LINE.
COURT OF KADADI CHAWL, STATION ROAD, SOLAPUR,
KARNATAKA
DIST: SOLAPUR. (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
4. SHIVASHANTABAI W/O NAGAPPA SADALAPUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
C/O VIJAY DHOLE R/O 125, RAILWAY LINE
KADADI CHAWL, STATION ROAD, SOLAPUR,
DIST: SOLAPUR.
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GANESH S. KALBURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR A2 TO A4)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269
RSA No. 200369 of 2014
HC-KAR
AND
1. VIDYASAGAR S/O. NAGAPPA SADALAPUR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
(AS PER ORDER DATED 29.01.2024)
A) SUREKHA W/O VIDYASAGAR SADALAPUR
AGE: 52 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO. 125, RAILWAY LINE KADADI CHAWL,
STATION ROAD, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR-413 001
(MAHARASHTRA STATE).
B) ANIRUDHA S/O VIDYASAGAR SADALAPUR
AGE: 25 YRS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
R/O H.NO. 125, RAILWAY LINE KADADI CHAWL,
STATION ROAD, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR-413 001
(MAHARASHTRA STATE).
C) ASHWINI D/O VIDYASAGAR SADALAPUR
W/O PRAMOD PATIL
AGE: 30 YRS, OCC: LECTURE,
R/O HOUSE NO. 101, SHIVAKUMAR RESIDENCY,
NAMDEV NAGAR, IN FRONT OF ZOOM COMPUTER,
BHAVANI PETH, SOLAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
2. SHANKAR S/O. SHYAMANI GUNJEGAVI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIK-BEVANUR, TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
3. RAJASHEKAHR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAPSE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.937 BEERAPPA NAGAR,
SINDAGI ROAD, INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
4. MALLINATH S/A. REVANASIDDAPPA KAPSE,
AGE: 40 YRS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O. HALASANGI,
TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
5. GURUNATH S/O. SHANKARAO KULAKARNI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O. WARD NO. 16 GANESH NAGAR,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269
RSA No. 200369 of 2014
HC-KAR
TDB QUARTERS, INDI, TQ: INDI,
DIST: BIJAPUR.
6. PADAMAVATI W/O GURUNATH KULAKARNI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. WARD NO.16 GANESH NAGAR,
TD QUARTERS, INDI, TQ: INDI,
DIST: BIJAPUR.
7. MADHAVI W/O SATISHCHANDRA KULAKARNI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O GANESH NAGAR, TDB QUARTERS, INDI,
TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
8. SANTOSH S/O. SHANTAPPA KAKKALMEIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHRI SHANTESHWAR MANGAL KARYALAY
SINDAGI ROAD, INDI, TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
9. IRAMMA W/O. RAMESH GUTTEDAR,
C/O RAMESH GUTTEDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BASAVASHWAR CHOEK, TDB QUARTERS, INDI,
TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
10. DHAYAKAMA S/O. RAMCHANDRA SHAHA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.DHANALAXMI COMPLEX CEMENT SHOP, INDI,
TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
11. SATAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA AMBRITSHETTI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE CUM
BUSINESS,
R/O. TIKKUNDI TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI.
12. THE PRESIDENT SHANTINIKETAN VIDAY VARDHAK
SANGH, TAL: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR.
(BY R1 HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS SENIOR ADVOCATE;
SRI. R. J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10;
SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R11;
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269
RSA No. 200369 of 2014
HC-KAR
NOTICE TO R1 (A) TO R1(C);
R2 TO R8 & R12 IS SERVED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2014
PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, BIJAPUR, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 28.08.2008, PASSED IN O.S.NO.17/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT INDI,
INSOFAR AS THE DISMISSAL OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BY
THE PLAINTIFFS FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION
IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.1009 MEASURING 12 ACRES 04
GUNTAS SITUATED AT INDI, IS CONCERNED.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND DECTATING FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.10.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by an unsuccessful plaintiffs questioning the concurrent findings of both the Courts wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking the relief of partition is dismissed only in respect of item No.3 by recording a finding that defendant No.2 is the bonafide purchaser of -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR item No.3 bearing Survey No.1009. These concurrent orders are under challenge.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The family tree is as under:
Nagappa (Propositus) = Shivashantabai (Wife-P-4) Vidyasagar Santosh Lalitha Rekha (D-1) (P-1) (P-2) (P-3)
4. The plaintiffs, who are the brothers and sisters of defendant No.1, instituted a suit in O.S.No.17/2007 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It was specifically alleged that defendant No.1, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, had executed a sale deed in respect of Item -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR No.3, measuring 12 acres 04 guntas, on the strength of a concocted and fabricated General Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs contended that such alienation was unauthorized and not binding upon their legitimate share in the joint family properties. Hence, they sought partition and consequential reliefs in respect of all the schedule items.
5. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1 remained absent and was placed ex parte. Defendant No.2, the purchaser of Item No.3, entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. He further alleged that the suit had been instituted by the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.1 only to defeat his lawful title and possession over Item No.3. Defendant No.2 asserted that he had purchased Item No.3 under a valid and registered sale deed, and that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit, holding -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR that the plaintiffs were entitled to their legitimate shares in Item Nos.1 and 2, while dismissing the suit in respect of Item No.3. While answering Issue No.3 in the affirmative, the Trial Court categorically held that defendant No.2 had succeeded in establishing that he was a bona fide purchaser.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, on an independent reappraisal of the entire material, declined to allow the application for production of additional evidence, particularly the disputed General Power of Attorney, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate due diligence. The Appellate Court further held that, having specifically pleaded forgery, the plaintiffs were required to substantiate such plea by producing cogent oral and documentary evidence, which they failed to do. Consequently, the Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and affirmed the dismissal of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR suit in respect of Item No.3, while maintaining the decree relating to Item Nos.1 and 2.
These concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are now under challenge in the present second appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11 who is the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the appeal and learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 10. There is no contest by other defendants.
8. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2015 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
"1) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are right in holding that defendant No.2 has proved that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit Sy.No.1009 of -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR Chik-bevanur village for valuable consideration even in the absence of any evidence to that effect?
2) Whether both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed any serious legal error in holding that defendant No.1 is a valid power of attorney holder to sell the property in favour of defendant No.2?
FINDING ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW No.1:
9. In a suit for partition, the initial burden of proof squarely lies upon the plaintiffs to establish that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties. In the present case, the plaintiffs, by instituting the suit, have specifically pleaded that all the suit schedule properties constitute joint family ancestral properties in which they are entitled to a legitimate share. Defendant No.1, though served with summons, chose not to contest the proceedings. However, defendant No.2, claiming to be the purchaser of Item No.3, entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR the said item had been sold to him by defendant No.1 under a valid General Power of Attorney executed by all the family members. It is in this context that the Trial Court framed Issue No.3 to ascertain whether defendant No.2 could be treated as a bona fide purchaser for value.
10. However, the framing of such an issue and the findings recorded thereon are, in the considered opinion of this Court, fundamentally misconceived. The concept of a "bona fide purchaser" is alien to a partition proceeding, which essentially involves determination of the existence of a joint family and ascertainment of the respective shares of its members. In such proceedings, when a stranger purchaser sets up title in respect of one or more items of joint family property, the burden rests squarely upon such purchaser to demonstrate that his purchase is valid in law either on account of legal necessity, benefit to the estate, or due to due authorization by the other coparceners. The initial presumption in partition suits is always in favour of jointness, and therefore, the onus lies
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR upon the alienee to justify the alienation and to establish that his vendor was legally empowered to convey the interest of others.
11. In the present case, though defendant No.2 filed a written statement asserting that he had purchased Item No.3 under a registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 pursuant to a valid Power of Attorney, he has neither stepped into the witness box nor produced the copy of the registered sale deed under which he claims title. The entire claim of defendant No.2, therefore, rests only on the pleadings, which by themselves do not constitute evidence. Once the plaintiffs specifically disputed the alienation and alleged that the General Power of Attorney on the strength of which defendant No.1 executed the sale deed was fabricated and invalid, the burden shifted on defendant No.2 to produce the best evidence, namely, the registered sale deed and the supporting authorization. However, for reasons best known to him, defendant No.2 failed to produce either the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR sale deed or the alleged Power of Attorney, thereby withholding the most material evidence in his possession.
12. In such circumstances, both the Courts below were expected to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, against defendant No.2 for withholding crucial documentary evidence which was solely within his knowledge and possession. Instead, both the Courts appear to have misdirected themselves by casting the burden upon the plaintiffs to prove the alleged fabrication of the Power of Attorney, without first insisting that defendant No.2 produce the very documents forming the basis of his claim. The approach adopted by the Courts below, therefore, amounts to a reversal of the settled burden of proof.
13. Had defendant No.2 produced the registered sale deed, it would have been possible for the Court to examine whether the sale was effected jointly by all the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR co-sharers, or whether it was an alienation solely by defendant No.1 purporting to act under an authorization from others. The failure to produce such a vital document has deprived the Court of an opportunity to properly adjudicate upon the core issue of authority and validity of alienation. Therefore, the conclusion recorded by both the Courts below that defendant No.2 is a bona fide purchaser is unsustainable in law and on facts.
14. In a partition suit, where a stranger claims title by purchase from one of the coparceners, the burden lies heavily upon such purchaser to establish that the sale was either for legal necessity, benefit of the family, or that the alienating member was duly authorized to convey the shares of the others. In the present case, there is a complete absence of any such evidence. The finding of the Trial Court on Issue No.3, therefore, suffers from a serious misapplication of legal principles and is based on no substantive evidence. The Appellate Court, by merely concurring with the said finding without rectifying the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR fundamental error in approach, has also fallen into the same error.
15. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that Issue No.3 was unwarranted and that the finding thereon holding defendant No.2 to be a bona fide purchaser is fundamentally flawed and perverse. Accordingly, Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answered in the negative, holding that both the Courts below erred in law in concluding that defendant No.2 is a bona fide purchaser of Item No.3 of the suit schedule properties. FINDING ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW No.2:
16. Though in the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that defendant No.1 had alienated Item No.3 of the suit schedule properties by executing a sale deed on the strength of a concocted and fabricated Power of Attorney, the initial onus, in such a situation, did not rest upon the plaintiffs to disprove the document. Once the plaintiffs set
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR up a plea disputing the alienation and denying the authority of defendant No.1 to convey the joint family property, the burden of proof shifted to defendant No.2, who was asserting independent title to the property, to produce the registered sale deed and demonstrate that the alienation was made not merely in his individual capacity by defendant No.1 but on behalf of all the family members with due authorization. The very foundation of defendant No.2's defence rested upon his alleged purchase from defendant No.1 under a valid authorization, and therefore, the onus of proving the existence, validity, and scope of such authorization lay squarely on defendant No.2.
17. Unfortunately, defendant No.2 has not chosen to lead any rebuttal evidence either by entering the witness box or by producing the registered sale deed through which he claims to have derived title. The failure of defendant No.2 to produce such vital evidence has resulted in both the Courts below misreading the pleadings and misapplying the settled principles governing burden of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR proof in partition suits. If defendant No.2 had stepped into the witness box and produced the sale deed indicating that defendant No.1 had executed the same in his capacity as an agent duly authorized by the plaintiffs, the burden would have thereafter shifted upon the plaintiffs to substantiate their plea that the Power of Attorney was fabricated or forged. However, in the absence of such evidence, the Courts below fell into a serious error in wrongly casting the burden upon the plaintiffs to disprove the Power of Attorney, when in law it was for defendant No.2 to affirmatively establish the validity of his title and the due authorization underlying the alienation.
18. Both the Courts have also failed to notice that defendant No.2, while claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, has not produced any material to demonstrate that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 was binding on the other coparceners. In a case of alienation of joint family property by one member, the purchaser has the responsibility to prove that the alienation was made
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR either for legal necessity, benefit to the estate, or with the consent or authority of other coparceners. The record in the present case is conspicuously silent on all these aspects. Hence, the initial burden ought to have been cast upon defendant No.2 and not on the plaintiffs merely because they pleaded that the alienation was based on a fabricated document. The approach adopted by both Courts below, therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal principle governing alienations of joint family properties.
19. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the Appellate Court clearly erred in recording a finding that defendant No.1 was acting under a valid Power of Attorney and was, therefore, competent to alienate Item No.3 in favour of defendant No.2. There being no reliable evidence either of the existence or of the validity of such authorization, the concurrent finding to that effect is unsustainable. Accordingly, Substantial Question of Law No.2 is answered in the affirmative, by holding that both the Courts below committed a serious error in law and on
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR facts in concluding that defendant No.1 possessed a valid Power of Attorney to sell Item No.3 to defendant No.2.
20. Having answered both the substantial questions of law, this Court proceeds to consider the equitable rights of defendant No.2, who is admittedly a stranger purchaser. In law, a purchaser from one coparcener acquires an equitable interest in the property corresponding to the vendor's share, and such interest is liable to be worked out in the final decree proceedings. Therefore, though the alienation made by defendant No.1 cannot bind the shares of the plaintiffs or other coparceners, the purchaser's rights to the extent of the share of defendant No.1 deserve protection in equity.
21. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to examine this aspect, namely, that even if the alienation was unauthorized vis-à-vis the shares of the plaintiffs, the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 would still be valid to the extent of his own
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR undivided share. Defendant No.1, being one of four siblings, was entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit properties. On a notional computation, the total extent of all three items of the suit schedule properties being 46.00 acres, the 1/5th share of defendant No.1 would approximately work out to 9.20 acres. Consequently, the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 can be treated as valid and binding to the extent of 9.20 acres, representing defendant No.1's undivided share in the joint family properties.
22. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have not specifically pleaded that Item No.3 was a distinct or more valuable portion of the joint family property, nor have they demonstrated that denial of their share in Item No.3 would result in manifest inequity or prejudice. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper, in the interest of equity and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, to protect the rights of defendant No.2 to the extent of the share of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 shall therefore be entitled, in the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR course of final decree proceedings, to seek allotment and possession of the property corresponding to defendant No.1's 1/5th share in item nos.1 and 2.
23. It is a well-settled principle of law that a stranger purchaser of an undivided interest in coparcenary property does not acquire ownership over any specific portion, but only steps into the shoes of the vendor to the extent of his share, and may, during final decree proceedings, seek allotment of the portion alienated to him. This equitable right has been consistently recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Accordingly, this Court clarifies that the sale in favour of defendant No.2 shall be recognized and protected only to the extent of the 1/5th share of defendant No.1, and defendant No.2 shall be entitled to seek appropriate reliefs in that regard during the final decree proceedings.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6269 RSA No. 200369 of 2014 HC-KAR
(ii) The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby modified. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed in its entirety, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession in respect of all the suit schedule properties, including Item No.3.
(iii) However, having regard to the findings recorded hereinabove, it is clarified that defendant No.2 and any subsequent purchasers, if any, shall be entitled to work out their equities in respect of Item No.3 during the course of the final decree proceedings, to the extent of the share of defendant No.1 in the joint family properties.
(iv) The office is directed to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 Ct:si