Sri Rangaiah vs Sri Hanumantharayappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 2052 Kant

                          1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.718/2021(PAR)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI.RANGAIAH,
       S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT GOVINDARAJAPURA,
       HEBBUR HOBLI,
       TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.

2.     SRI. VENKATE GOWDA,
       S/O VENKATARAMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT GOVINDARAJAPURA,
       HEBBUR HOBLI,
       TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
                                    ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
       S/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ SIDDAIAHAGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
       R/O BELEGERE, KASABA HOBLI,
       GUBBI TALUK,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
                            2
     NOW RESIDING AT ROOM N.210
     GONDIVILLE TALAVU,
     ASHIRVADCHAL COMMITTEE,
     LINK ROAD, ANDERI EAST,
     BOMBAY - 69.

2.   SMT. NAGAMMA,
     W/O DODDAHANUMAIAH,
     D/O LATE NAGAMMA,
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
     R/O BANDIHALLI, NITTUR HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

3.   CHIKKANARASAMMA,
     SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,

a    GAVIRANGAIAH
     S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/O BILIGERE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK - 572 216.

4.   LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,

a    SRI. RAJA,
     S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     R/O CHINDIGERE,
     CHELUR HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

b    SEENAPPA DEAD BY LRs.,

b(1) SRI. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
     W/O LATE SEENAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     R/O CHINDIGERE,
                          3
     CHELUR HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

b(2) SRI. RAMESH,
     S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     R/O CHINDIGERE,
     CHELUR HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

3.   SRI. AMMAIAH,
     W/O CHIKKEMPAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/O BALLAPURA,
     BELLAVI HOBLI,
     TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.

4.   SRI.REKHA,
     W/O NAGARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
     R/O KEMPANADODDERI,
     TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.

5.   SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
     W/O GAVIRANGANAIKA,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     R/O BILIGERE, KASABA HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

6.   SRI. RAMAIAH,
     S/O LATE RANGANAIKA,
     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,

a    JYOTHI, W/O PRAKASH,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     R/O MALLAPPANAHALLI,
                         4
     KASABA HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

b.   SMT. GOWRAMMA,
     W/O GANGARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     R/O PRABHUVANAHALLI,
     KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

c.   SMT. GANGAMMA,
     W/O INDIRESH,
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
     R/O NAGAVALLI,
     HEBBUR HOBLI,
     TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.

d    SRI. MANJUNATHA,
     S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

e    SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
     S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

     BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
     BILIGERE, KASABA HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

7.   SMT. JAYAMMA,
     W/O RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     R/O BILIGERE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
                              5
8.   SRI. VENKATASWAMAIAH,
     S/O VENKATARAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     R/O GOVINDARAJAPURA,
     HEBBU HOBLI,
     TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.

                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NABEEL FOR SRI. H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV., FOR
R-1, R-2 AND R-3(a);
R-4(a), R-4(b)(1), R-4(b)(2), R-6(b) & R-6(c) ARE SERVED
AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2022, NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-8
IS DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022, NOTICE TO R-4(b)(3 &
4) IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
09.04.2021 PASSED IN R.A.No.81/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GUBBI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 11.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.No.154/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
GUBBI.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for

partition, which has been decreed by the Trial Court and

affirmed by the Appellate Court.

2. This second appeal is by the purchasers of portions

of item Nos.2 and 4 respectively.

3. The relationship between the parties is not in

dispute. The family tree which would be relevant is as

follows:

Talegedara Naika(dead) Wife not known(dead)

Gavirangaiah(dead) Wife Puttathimmakka(dead)

Rangamma Nanjamma Puttamma Lakshmamma (dead) (dead) (dead) (50 years) Siddaiah Madaiah Ugraiah Chikkarangaiah Siddegowda (90 years) (85 years) (dead) (dead) (Residing Separately)

Siddananjappa HanumanthaRamappa Nagamma ChikkaNarsamma (48 years) (65 years) (50 years) Ramachandregowda Padmamma Dodda Hanumaiah (Residing Separately) (dead) (40 years) (79 years) (Not Married) (Residing Separately)

4. The plaintiff's, who were from the three branches of

Gavirangaiah, filed the suit seeking for partition stating

that the properties were joint family properties and they

were entitled to their legitimate share. It was stated that

Lakshmamma, the 1st defendant, had managed to get her

name entered in the revenue records and had alienated

the suit properties in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 6.

5. The 1st defendant, Lakshmamma did not contest the

suit. The defendants 2 to 4 contested the suit stating that

the 1st defendant was performing the Talwarike and hence

enjoying the suit properties and as a consequence, the

land was granted in her favour by the Government. It was

stated that since the suit properties were her absolute

properties, she was entitled to sell the same and

defendants 2 to 6 were also entitled to purchase the same.

6. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence

adduced, came to the conclusion that the suit properties

were ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants

the plaintiffs were each entitled to 1/4th share in the suit

properties. The Trial Court also held that the defendants 2

to 6 were unable to prove that they were bonafide

purchasers.

7. The purchasers i.e., defendants 2 to 6 preferred an

appeal. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the

evidence, found no reason to disagree with the finding of

the Trial Court, and had accordingly proceeded to confirm

the decree and had dismissed the appeal.

8. As against these concurring judgments, the present

second appeal has been preferred only by two of the

purchasers, who were defendants 3 and 6, respectively.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that

Lakshmamma - the last daughter of Gavirangaiah had filed

O.S.No.155/1994 against Chikkarangaiah and others,

seeking for a declaration that the suit properties were her

properties and this suit had ended in a decree in her

favour and all the revenue documents stood in her name,

and it was therefore clear that the suit properties could not

be the ancestral properties of Gavirangaiah and even if

they were the properties of Gavirangaiah, by virtue of the

decree, it had become the separate property of defendant

No.1 - Lakshmamma. He submitted that the appellants

had purchased portions of the suit properties from

Lakshmamma after she had obtained a decree, and

therefore, their purchases could not be nullified by grant of

a decree. He also submitted that there was no prayer for

declaration that the Sale Deed executed by Lakshmamma

was not binding and therefore, the suit for partition could

not have been decreed. He lastly submitted that the suit

for partition was barred by limitation.

10. Admittedly, the suit properties were Inam lands and

admittedly Gavirangaiah's father was holding the village

office and after his death, Gavirangaiah was holding the

said village office. It is not in dispute that Gavirangaiah

passed away about 50 years ago and after his death, the

suit lands were granted to Puttathimmaka, his wife. Thus,

the fact that the suit properties were granted because the

family held the village office cannot be in doubt at all. As a

consequence, on the death of Gavirangaiah and his wife

Puttathimmaka, by operation of law, the suit properties

stood devolved on their four children, equally and

simultaneously. Defendant No.1 could not, therefore, have

conveyed the portion of the suit properties 2 and 4 in

favour of the appellants on the assumption that she was

the owner of the suit properties. The decree that she had

obtained against third parties would not obviously bind the

plaintiffs and the said decree would not transform her

limited share into an absolute share. Therefore, the

argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that on

the basis of the decree obtained by Lakshmamma, the

properties purchased by them should be treated as

separate properties cannot be accepted.

11. The next argument that the plaintiffs had not

claimed for a declaration that the Sale Deed was not

binding cannot also be accepted. The plaintiffs were only

concerned with claiming their separate share and it would

not be necessary in the eye of law for them to challenge

the Sale Deed to which they were not parties. This

argument also, therefore, fails.

12. The last submission that the suit for partition was

barred by limitation cannot be also accepted, since it is not

the case of anybody that the plaintiffs were excluded from

joint family properties in order to attract Article 110 of the

Limitation Act. This argument also, therefore, fails.

13. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the

properties were granted because of the village office held

by Gavirangaiah and his predecessors, the decree granted

by both the courts in favour of the plaintiffs holding that

they were entitled to 1/4th share each cannot be found

fault with. There is no substantial question of law arising

for consideration in this second appeal and the same is

dismissed.

14. However, it is made clear that the appellants, who

are purchasers of portions of Item Nos.2 and 4 from

defendant No.1 - Lakshmamma would be entitled to seek

for allotment of the properties that they had purchased, to

the extent of Lakshmamma's 1/4th share in these

properties in the final decree proceedings.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH/KK