Karnataka High Court
Smt Geetha vs Sri Doddaiah on 17 February, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1391 OF 2020 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GEETHA
W/O MANJUNATHA H
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.100/1
CHIKKABANAVARA
YASHAWANTHAPURA
BENGALURU NORTH-560037
2. SMT. SUDHA
W/O RAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T R/AT No.138, 3RD MAIN
Location: HIGH 2ND CROSS KASTURIBA NAGAR
COURT OF MYSURU ROAD
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560026
3. SMT. INDIRA
W/O PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.138, 3RD MAIN
2ND CROSS, KASTURIBA NAGAR
MYSURU ROAD
BENGALURU-560026
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ABHIJITH M.M, ADVOCATE)
-2-
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
AND:
SRI DODDAIAH
SINCE DEAD AND HIS LRS
1. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT No.67, PIPELINE EAST
K B NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560064
2. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
3. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KYLANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST.-562159
SMT MADHAMMA
SINCE DEAD, BY HER LR'S
4. SMT SUSHEELA
W/O LATE MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
5. SMT ANITHA
D/O SUSHEELA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT MENASIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
VEERUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI
-3-
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DIST. - 562 138
6. SRI YOGESHA M
S/O SUSHEELA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
7. SRI MANJUNATHA
D/O SUSHELLA AND MAHADEVU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KYLANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST.-562159
...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.07.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
AND ETC.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants.
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 14.07.2020 passed in R.A.No.55/2019
on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property is
the ancestral and joint family property of themselves and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 and also contend that the sale deed
executed by defendant No.1 and Beeraiah in favour of
defendant No.4 in respect of the suit schedule property is
null and void and not binding on them. In pursuance of
the suit summons, the defendant No.4 appeared and filed
written statement contending that the sale made by
defendant No.1 and Beeraiah in favour of him are to
redeem the mortgage made earlier for the family legal
necessities and also he contend that he is a bonafide
purchaser of the suit property and the defendants have
also taken the contention that the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. In order to prove the case of
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
the plaintiffs, first plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and
witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 to P3. On the other hand, the GPA
holder of the defendant No.4 has been examined as DW1
and during the penddency of the proceedings defendant
No.4 passed away hence, the evidence of defendant No.1
who is her GPA holder is expunged vide order dated
09.01.2018 and later, the legal representatives of
defendant No.4 were brought on record including DW1 and
one of his legal representativegot examined as DW2 and
got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D7.
4. The Trial Court after considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record comes to the
conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the
ancestral and joint family properties and answered Issue
No.1 as affirmative and answered Issue No.2 as negative
in coming to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 and Beeraiah in favaour of defendant No.4
is not null and void and accepted the contention of
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
defendant No.4 that the said sale was made to redeem the
mortgage which was made earlier and also comes to the
conclusion that defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser.
Apart from that made an observation that not made all the
parties as respondents in the suit hence, the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties and also observed that as
per Ex.D2 and D3, sale deeds are executed by defendant
No.1 along with his brother Beeraiah and both of them
have alienated the suit schedule property and remaining 1
acre of land in Sy.No.126/4also sold in favour of defendant
No.4 and when the other executant of the sale deed is not
made as a party to the proceedings, the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties and dismissed the suit
filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
the Trial Court, an appeal was filed wherein the First
Appellate Court considering the grounds urged in the
appeal memo formulated the points with regard to
whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property
is the ancestral and joint family property and whether the
sale deed executed by defendant No.1 along with his
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
brother is null and void and whether the defendant No.4 is
the bonafide purchaser and the First Appellate Court also
formulated the point with regard to the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties and whether judgment of the
Trial Court requires interference.
5. The First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court
in coming to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 and his brother is not null and void and
defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaserand the same was
purchased to redeem the earlier mortgage and apart from
that Court has taken note of non-joinder of necessary
parities and very legal heirs of said Beeraiah were not
brought on record and confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First
Appellate Court, the present appeal is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the
sale deed executed in the year 2002 is also for the legal
necessity and the very approach of the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court is erroneous and substantial
question of law raises for consideration of this Court are
both the Courts were not justified in dismissing the suit
filed by the appellant and erroneously comes to the
conclusion that defendant No.4 is the bonafide purchaser
hence, it requires interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also on perusal of the material available on
record, it discloses that the plaintiffs have sought for the
relief of partition and separate possession and while filing
the suit, it is contended that sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 and his brother Beeraiah are null and void.
Admittedly, the said Beeraiah and his legal heirs are not
made as parties to the proceedings and the Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties and First Appellate Court also
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
confirmed the same. The First Appellate Court also not
disputes the fact that the said Beeraiah was also a party to
the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4 and
ought to have been arrayed the said Beeraiah as party to
the proceedings and after his death, his legal heirs have to
be brought on record but the same was not done hence,
both the Courts are given the finding that sale made in
favour of defendant No.4 is for legal necessity that is to
clear the earlier mortgage and also comes to the
conclusion that defendant No.4 is the bonafide purchaser
and the matter is also contested only by defendant No.4
who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule
property from defendant No.1 and his brother Beeraiah.
When such being the material available on record I do not
find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing
the suit and First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation
of both oral and documentary evidence available on record
in paragraph 30 considered that defendant No.4 is the
bonafide purchaser and taken note of documents at Ex.D2
and D3 which were sold in the year 1975 and 2002
- 10 -
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
respectively. It is also observed that even though Ex.D2
and D3 were executed by defendant No.1 and his brother
Beeraiah who are the managers of the joint family, the
plaintiffs seeking their respective shares in the suit
schedule property but failed to claim any relief either the
invalidity of those documents or non-binding of their
interest in view of submitting to allot their share and also
taken note of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and
discussed in detailed in paragraph 31 and also taken note
of Section 33 with regard to the evidence of DW2
established a liability of the joint family towards which
Ex.D2 and D3 were executed by defendant No.1 and his
brother Beeraiah and also taken note of the contents of
Ex.D2 and D3 and in order to discharge the hand loans,
family maintenance, house expenses only those sale
deedswere executed hence, comes to the conclusion that
sale was made for the benefit of family and when such
finding was given by both the Trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court, I do not find any merit in the appeal to
- 11 -
RSA No. 1391 of 2020
admit the same and to frame substantial question of law
invoking Section 100 of CPC.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
