Karnataka High Court
S. A. Devamma vs R. Naganna on 23 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A. No.706/2021(DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. S.A.DEVAMMA,
W/O B.V.NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. CHITTAMMA,
D/O B.V.NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
3. MAMATHA,
D/O B.V.NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
4. MEENAKSHI,
D/O B.V.NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
5. RANGANATHA,
S/O B.V.NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
6. RANJITHA,
D/O B.V.NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O MYAKALURAHALLY VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 599. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. VIJAYA.M.N. ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. R.NAGANNA,
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2. RANGANNA,
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
3. MAHALINGAPPA,
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
4. B.V.RANGAPPA,
S/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R-1 TO 4 ARE
R/O MYAKALURAHALLY VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 599.
5. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
6. DEPUTY COMMISSINER,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
7. CHIEF SECRETARY,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
8. EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
HIRIYUR-577 599.
3
9. TAHASILDAR,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
HIRIYUR.
10. SECRETARY,
GRAMPANCHAYATH,
BABBUR,
HIRIYUR TALUK-577 599.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2020
PASSED IN R.A. No.31/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HIRIYUR, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S. No.155/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HIRIYUR, PARTLY
DISMISSING AND PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal.
2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition. It was
their case that Badanagappa had two sons viz.,
Rangappa and Erappa.
3. Rangappa had three sons, while Erappa also had
three sons. The husband of the 1st plaintiff was the first
son of Erappa and plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 were their children.
They contended that the suit properties belonged to
Badanagappa and they were therefore entitled to a
share.
4. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence,
came to the conclusion that the suit properties were the
joint family properties and the relationship had also been
proved. The Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit in
respect of suit Item Nos.2 to 4.
5. In respect of suit Item No.1, the Trial Court found
that Rangappa--the first son of Badanagappa, had gifted
the property to the Taluk Panchayat for the formation of
sites and distribution of the same to the house-less
persons and this gift was made in the year 1985. The
Trial Court came to the conclusion that since the gift was
made for a charitable purpose and the same was not
challenged within the period prescribed in the Limitation
Act, 1963, the claim in respect of suit Item No.1 could
not be entertained and it proceeded to dismiss the claim
in respect of Item No.1.
6. In appeal, the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
the evidence, concurred with the findings of the Trial
Court. The Appellate Court also took the view that the
gift of the year 1985 ought to have been challenged
within the period of three years and that having not been
done, the suit for partition in respect of suit Item No.1
could not be granted. The Appellate Court accordingly
dismissed the appeal.
7. It is against these judgments, in which it has been
concurrently held that suit Item No.1 was not amenable
to a partition by virtue of the gift, the present second
appeal has been preferred.
8. It is not in dispute that suit Item No.1 was gifted to
the Panchayat for the purpose of formation of sites and
distribution of sites to the house-less persons. It is also
not in dispute that the gift was made in the year 1985
and the suit was filed 24 years thereafter in the year
2009. In the light of the undisputable fact that the suit
was filed 24 years after the gift which had been made in
1985, both the Courts have rightly come to the
conclusion that the plea seeking for partition in respect
of suit Item No.1 could not be entertained.
9. If find no substantial question of law arising for
consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK/-
CT:SN
