Karnataka High Court
K R Rangaswamaiah vs Venkataramaiah on 12 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
RSA No. 987 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH,
W/O LATE THIMMA HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SMT. SHARADAMMA,
Digitally signed
D/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH,
by SUCHITRA W/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
MJ
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. SREERANGAMURTHY,
S/O LATE K.R. RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS,
RESIDENTS OF KALLANAYAKANAHALLI,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
RSA No. 987 of 2023
AND:
VENKATARAMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1. SMT. NARASAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. GOVINDAIAH @ GOVINDARAJ,
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KALLANAYAKANAHALLI,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
SMT. GANGAMMA,
D/O LATE RANGAIAH,
W/O LATE GANGABYRAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4. T.G. NANJABYRAIAH,
S/O LATE GANGABYRAIAH,
AGED BOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDIGN AT NO. 131, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
3RD CORSS, NEAR OLD CHECK POST
OFFICE, T. DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
SMT. LAKKAMMA,
W/O LATE RANGAIAH,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
RSA No. 987 of 2023
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
5. THIMMEGOWDA. R,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
II MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABIDRAKALLU,
NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073.
6. KRISHNAIAH R,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
7. SURESH. R,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDENTS OF KULUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.
SMT. BYRAMMA,
D/O LATE RANGAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
8. C. GOVINDARAJU,
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 120, 9TH 'A' CROSS,
II MAIN, KAVERIPURA,
KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079.
9. C. DEVARAJU,
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 59, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
RSA No. 987 of 2023
OLD GOPI SCHOOL ROAD, IV MAIN,
MEENAKSHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 076.
10. C. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.64, SUJAYA NILAYA,
PIPE LINE ROAD, BYADARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADARSH K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2023 PASSED IN RA
NO. 123/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.749/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful plaintiffs, wherein plaintiffs suit filed in
O.S.No.749/2009 seeking a declaration that on account of
death of one Akkayyamma, they being the brothers and
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
sisters of Akkayyamma, have succeeded to the estate is
dismissed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration
of title and an injunction to restrain the defendants from
interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession. Plaintiff
No.1-K.R.Rangaswamaiah and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and one
Akkayyamma are brothers and sisters. The plaintiffs
contended that one Rangaiah is the propositus. The said
Akkayyamma was given in marriage to defendant No.1.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1 deserted
Akkayyamma and therefore she was compelled to return
to her parental home and she was residing with her father,
Rangaiah. Plaintiffs further alleged that the suit schedule
property was allotted to the said Akkayyamma under a
settlement deed executed by her father, Rangaiah. Plaintiff
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
further contended that Akkayyamma and Rangaiah lived
together and were in possession of all the suit schedule
properties. Plaintiffs further case is that since
Akkayyamma had no issue, on account of death of
Rangaiah, she started residing with plaintiff No.1 till her
death. Alleging that Akkayyamma has died interstate, the
present suit is filed seeking declaration of title and for
injunction.
4. Defendant No.1, on receipt of summons,
tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly
denied the claim made by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1,
however, claimed that under Section 15(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act'), he, being the
husband of Akkayyamma, has succeeded to the suit
property and is in possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property and therefore, sought dismissal of the
suit.
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
5. Defendant No.2, except admitting the
relationship of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 with
Akkayyamma, however, disputed the plaintiffs claim over
the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 claimed that
Akkayyamma acquired absolute right under a registered
settlement deed dated 30.09.1969. Defendant No.2
further contended that Akkayyamma, during her lifetime,
offered to sell the suit property and accordingly executed
an agreement on 31.12.1992 for a sale consideration of
`75,000/- and defendant No.1 is a consenting party to the
said agreement. Defendant No.2 further contended that
since Akkayyamma and defendant No.1 failed to complete
the transaction, he was compelled to file a suit for specific
performance in O.S.NO.118/1993. Defendant No.2 claimed
that the suit was decreed on 04.08.1993. Based on the
decree passed in suit for specific performance in
O.S.No.118/1993, defendant No.2 filed an execution
petition and secured a sale deed and therefore claimed
that he is the absolute owner and sought for dismissal of
the suit.
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
6. Plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their
respective claims have let in oral and documentary
evidence.
7. The Trial Court having taken cognizance of the
rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2, answered issue
Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. While answering issue No.1 in
the negative, the Trial Court has exhaustively dealt with
the evidence let in by both the parties. While examining
the evidence let in by both the parties, the Trail Court was
of the view that the father of plaintiffs, Rangaiah, who is
the owner of the property, settled the family property in
terms of a settlement deed way back in 1969. The Trial
Court further found that plaintiff No.1 in fact challenged
the settlement deed in O.S.No.122/1970. The said suit
ended in dismissal and was confirmed by this Court in
RSA.No.15/1991. The Trial Court also found that two suits
were filed against Akkayyamma during her lifetime by
P.W.1, who is none other than the son of plaintiff No.1.
P.W.1 instituted a suit in O.S.No.67/1993, seeking an
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
injunction against these defendants. The said suit is
dismissed. The Trial Court also found that P.W.1 had filed
a suit in O.S.No.171/1993, alleging that Akkayyamma had
executed an agreement in his favour on 12.12.1992. The
Trial Court found that the suit for specific performance
filed by P.W.1 was dismissed and confirmed by the
Appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2009. The Trial Court has
also taken cognizance of the criminal case launched
against P.W.1 in C.C.No.245/1980. The Trial Court held
that P.W.1 was prosecuted for having abducted
Akkayyamma, and he was convicted in C.C.No.245/1980.
Referring to all the significant details, the Trial Court
answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed
the suit by holding that defendant No.2 has acquired a
valid right under a decree for specific performance.
8. Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the
appellate Court. The Appellate Court, having
independently assessed the entire evidence on record,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
dismissed the appeal. These concurrent judgments are
under challenge.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for defendant
No.2. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
10. On examining the records, this Court would find
that the case on hand has a checkered history. Though
Akkayyamma was allotted the present suit schedule
property under settlement deed by her father, which is
dated 30.09.1969, the plaintiffs have used all possible
means to deny the title of Akkayyamma acquired under
the registered settlement deed dated 30.09.1969. Plaintiff
No.1 questioned the settlement deed executed by his
father, wherein the suit schedule property came to be
allotted to the share of Akkayyamma. The suit filed in
O.S.No.122/1970, which was transferred and renumbered
as O.S.No.27/1980 questioning the settlement deed, was
dismissed and confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.15/1991.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
11. The plaintiffs do not stop here. P.W.1, who is
the son of plaintiff No.1, alleging that Akkayyamma,
during her lifetime, executed an agreement on
12.12.1992, filed a suit for specific performance in
O.S.No.171/1993. The material on record clearly
demonstrates that this agreement set up by P.W.1 was not
only a concocted document, but it was secured by undue
influence and coercion. Records also indicate that P.W.1
was convicted in C.C.No.245/1980.
12. If these significant details are looked into, then
the question that requires consideration is as to whether
plaintiffs can assert title by taking benefit of Section
15(2)(a) of the Act. On examining the rebuttal evidence
let in by defendant No.2, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that Section 15(2)(a) of the Act has no application to
the present case on hand. The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that the decree for
specific performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993 in favour
of defendant No.2 is a collusive decree and it would not
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
bind on plaintiffs cannot be exceeded too. The question as
to whether it is a collusive decree and the question as to
whether the agreement to sell dated 31.12.1992, in favour
of defendant No.2 is a concocted agreement cannot be
gone into in view of the decree for specific performance
passed in O.S.No.118/1993. If the decree for specific
performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993 in favour of
defendant No.2 has gone unchallenged, the plaintiffs
cannot have recourse to Section 15(2)(a) of the Act and
claim ownership over the suit schedule property. Had
Akkayyamma died interstate, the plaintiffs would have
acquired rights under Section 15(2)(a) at the exclusion of
defendant No.1/husband. But the records clearly reveal
that Akkayyamma, during her lifetime, executed an
agreement in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant
No.2 by instituting a suit for specific performance in
O.S.No.118/1993, has succeeded in proving the due
execution of the agreement. The decree for specific
performance passed in O.S.No.118/1993 is enforced by
defendant No.2 by filing Ex.P.No.56/2005. If the decree
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
passed in O.S.No.118/1993 has attained finality, the
plaintiffs have no locus to institute the present suit and
cannot seek benefit under Section 15(2)(a). If
Akkayyamma, who is the absolute owner, has meddled
with the property by executing an agreement to sell, and if
an competent civil court has granted a decree for specific
performance, plaintiffs could not have maintained the
present suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential
relief of injunction.
13. The rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2
further clearly establishes that it is defendant No.2, who is
found to be in lawful possession. Even on this count, the
present suit is not maintainable. Both the Courts have
exhaustively dealt with the rebuttal evidence let in by
defendant No.2. Plaintiffs who have fought litigation during
the lifetime of Akkayyamma and have gone to the extent
of questioning the right and title of Akkayyamma based on
settlement deed have continued their relentless efforts in
trying to retrieve the property. Therefore, I am more than
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45097
satisfied that the present suit is a frivolous suit and an
attempt is made to deny the decree secured by defendant
No.2 in a suit for specific performance. Under the garb of
seeking a declaration, the plaintiff cannot nullify a decree
passed in specific performance passed in
O.S.No.118/1993. Therefore, no substantial question of
law would arise for consideration. The regular second
appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
