Karnataka High Court
Siddaramaiah Since Dead Byhis Lrs Smt ... vs Revanna on 2 April, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
RSA No. 1060 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BYHIS LRS SMT
1. SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. REVANASIDDAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
3. SHIVARUDRAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDARAIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. SIDDALINGASWAMY
Digitally
signed by S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
SUMA B N
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
5. BASAMMA
D/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
6. S SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
RSA No. 1060 of 2022
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI POST
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
7. SMT PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
8. S APPAJI GOWDA
S/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
9. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10. SUJATHA
W/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
11. RENUKAMMA
W/O LATE KADUPURAIAH @ SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
APPELLANTS 7 TO 11 ARE
R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
12. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPAA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
RSA No. 1060 of 2022
13. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT SANGABASAVANADODDI VILALGE
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 562 128.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REVANNA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILLAGE
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. T. THIMMAIAH
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT VADERHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. GURUSIDDAMMA
W/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/T VITALANEHALLI VIILLAGE
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMNAGARA DISTRICT.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
RSA No. 1060 of 2022
4. KAMAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE HONNAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. SIDDAMMA
W/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT VIDHOOTIKERE VILLAGE
KALINACHA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK
AND DISRICT.
VEERABHADRAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
6. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7. SMT BHADRAKALAMMA
W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
8. S V PUTTARUDRAIAH
W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
RSA No. 1060 of 2022
9. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10. CHANNAVEERADEVARU
W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
11. KANTHAMMA
W/O LT VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 11 ARE
R/AT SANGABSAVANADODDI VILALGE
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G. ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2022
PASSED IN RA.No.40/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANGARA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED IN OS No.219/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM, RAMANAGARA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
RSA No. 1060 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 19.03.2019 passed in
O.S.No.219/2008 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and
C.J.M., Ramanagara (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which was
confirmed by the judgment and order dated 13.04.2022 passed
in R.A.No.40/2019 on the file of III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (hereinafter 'the First Appellate
Court').
2. The above suit is filed by the original plaintiffs-
Siddaramaiah, Kadapuraiah @ Siddaiah as plaintiff No.2,
Shivanna as plaintiff No.3 and Mallikarjunaiah as plaintiff No.4
all being sons of one Late.Siddappa against other family
members for the relief of partition and separate possession of
their alleged 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties.
3. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1
are the brothers. They are the sons of one Sidappa and
Basamma. That both Siddappa and Bassamma are dead. That
their father late Sidappa possessed ancestral joint family
properties and he was very ignorant and innocent. The
defendant No.1 being an educated person and well versed with
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
the worldly affairs, was managing the affairs of the family.
During the life time of their father Siddappa, all of them were
residing as a Joint Family. During that time, the defendant No.1
purchased the properties bearing Sy.No.83/3, measuring 23
guntas and the property bearing Sy.No.133/1 measuring 45X90
feet in his name for and on behalf of the joint family. It is
contended that defendant No.1 had no independent income
except the proceeds of the joint family. That due to discord in
the joint family, plaintiffs demanded for partition, which was
declined constraining them to file the present suit.
4. Though originally suit was filed by defendant No.1 and
defendant No.2, subsequently defendant Nos.3 to 6 were
impleaded. Though, summons were served defendant Nos.3
and 5 did not appear before the Trial Court and were placed ex-
parte. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 filed their separate written
statement.
5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement
though admitted their relationship specifically denied the plaint
averments. It is contended that;
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
(a). Only suit item No.4 of the suit schedule properties
was an ancestral property and even the said property was
divided amongst the family members during the life time of
their father Siddappa. That all the parties are living separately
in different portions of item No.4 of the suit schedule
properties.
(b). It is contended that item No.3 did not exist, however
the boundaries given to item No.3 refers to Sy.No.133/1 which
measures East to West 30 yards and North to South 60 yards,
which is the self acquired property of this defendant No.1.
(c). It is contended that Late Siddappa their father did
not possesses any landed properties and he was having one
house property. The defendant No.1 left the home and went to
Mysuru, where he was working under one Professor
Sri.Thotappa for about 11 years and saved some money, out of
which, in the first instance he purchased the land measuring
East to West 30 yards and North to South 60 yards in
Sy.No.133/1 of Kethohalli Village under registered deed of sale
dated 01.02.1971 from Sri.B.M.Siddappa. That thereafter, he
had obtained mortgage of land bearing Sy.No.148/7 measuring
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
1 acre 24 guntas and 83/3 measuring 23 guntas of Kethohalli
Village through registered deed of mortgage dated 27.11.1972
from Sri.K.V.Shilpacharya. Who later sold the said lands in
favour of defendant No.1 through registered deed of sale dated
16.04.1974, as he was unable to redeem the mortgage.
(d). The defendant No.1 being in need of money, sold the
land in Sy.No.133/1, measuring East to West 30 yards and
North to South 60 yards in favour of one Sri.Gangamadaiah in
terms of registered deed of sale dated 15.03.1971. Which was
repurchased by defendant No.1 in terms of registered deed of
sale dated 27.04.1973. It is contended that, due to oversight
the survey number was wrongly mentioned as 130/1 instead of
133/1 in the said deed of sale, though the extent and
boundaries were mentioned correctly. As such, a registered
rectification deed dated 13.02.2007 was executed for rectifying
the survey number as 133/1. That the defendant No.1
borrowed the money from one Vazeer Ahmed Nawab Jan in
terms of registered deed of Hypothecation dated 16.05.1975,
against the security of lands in Sy.No.148/7, 83/3, which he
has cleared and discharged the said loan.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
(e). Pursuant to the sale, katha of the said properties,
except Sy.No. 133/1 are made out in the name of defendant
No.1. The land in Sy.No. 133/1 is within the gramatana limit
and katha has not been made out yet. However, defendant
No.1 is in exclusive possession of the said land along with other
properties in his own right as absolute owner.
(g). That the defendant No.1 has sold land measuring 01
acre 20.3/4 guntas in Sy. No. 148/7 in favour of defendant
No.2 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 21.06.2007 and
the defendant No.2 has been in possession of the same. That
defendant No.1 had further sold the land bearing Sy.No.83/3,
measuring 0.23 guntas in favour of Veerabhadralah. The
defendant No.1 had borrowed the money during the relevant
time, so as to purchase the lands and those loans has been
cleared. Thus, all the properties mentioned above are all self
acquired properties of defendant No.1 and there was no
contribution of any nature, whatsoever from any members of
the family, much less the plaintiffs. Hence, sought for dismiss
of the suit
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
5. Defendant No.2 in his written statement contended
that defendant No.1 had offered to sell the land measuring 1
acre 23 guntas in Sy.No. 148/7 in his favour. That after
verifying the records, he purchased the same in terms of
registered deed of sale dated 21.06.2007 and he has been in
possession of the said property as a bonafide purchaser. Similar
in the written statement is filed by the defendant No.6, who
had purchased 23 guntas of land in Sy.No. 83/3 .
6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues for its consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove the suit item No.3
and 4 are ancestral joint family properties and item
No.1 and 2 have been purchased out of joint family
income in the name of 1st defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove themselves and
defendants are in joint possession of suit schedule
properties?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves except 4th
item other properties are his self acquired?
4. Whether he proves item No.4 is divided already?
5. Whether 1st and 2nd defendant prove 1st defendant
having absolute right along with his wife and
children sold item No.2 in favour of defendant No.2?
6. Whether defendant No.2 proves he is bonafide
purchaser of the item No.2?
7. Whether both defendant prove defendant No.2 is
in possession of Item No.2 as absolute owner?
8. Whether they prove the court fee paid is
insufficient ?
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
sought?
10. What Order or Decree?"
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
"1. Whether the defendant No.6 prove that he is the
bonafide purchaser of item No. 1 of suit schedule
property?"
7. The plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW.1 and yet one
witnesses as PW.2. The Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 are the documents
marked on the side of plaintiffs. The defendants 1, 6 and 2 got
examined as DW.1, 2 and 6 and yet three witnesses as DW.3 to
5. The Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.77 are the documents marked on the
side of contesting defendants.
8. The plaintiff No.3 examined himself as PW.1 and one
additional witness has been examined in his favour as PW.2
and exhibited 11 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. In
order to prove their defence, defendant Nos.1, 6 and 2
examined themselves as DW.1, DW.2 and DW.6 respectively.
three additional witnesses have been examined in favour of the
defendants as DW.3, DW.4 and DW.5 and exhibited 77
documents. On appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court
answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative, issue Nos.2, 8
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
and 9 in the negative and issue Nos.3 to 7 and additional issue
No.1 in the affirmative and consequently dismissed the suit.
9. During the pendency of the suit original plaintiff Nos.1
and 2 passed away and their legal representatives were
brought on record. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
and decree the Legal representatives of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2
and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 filed the appeal in R.A.No.40/2019
before the First Appellate Court. Considering the grounds urged
the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its
consideration:
"1. Do the appellants for the reasons assigned in the
grounds of appeal prove and establish that the trial
court while passing the impugned judgment has not
appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence
in a proper manner and therefore that the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside by this court of
appeal and that the original suit be decreed as
prayed for?
2) What order?"
10. On re-appreciation of the evidences, the First
Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the negative and
consequently dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the
same appellant is before this Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
11. Sri.Anandeeswara D.R, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of
the appeal submitted that the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have failed to consider the evidence placed on
record by the plaintiff with regard to the existence of the joint
family. He submits that once the joint family was in place, a
presumption ought to have drawn with regard to existence of a
joint family properties. He submits that defendant No.1 himself
had admitted that the item No.4 of suit schedule properties is a
joint family property. As such, further presumption ought to
have been drawn that other items of suit schedule properties
have been purchased for and on behalf of the joint family in the
name of defendant No.1. He submits that of all the family
members, defendant No.1 was educated and was managing the
affairs of the family, therefore the sale deeds were executed in
his favour which according to him Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have not appreciated. Thus, he submits that
same gives raise to substantial question of law warranting
consideration at the hands of this Court.
12. Heard. Perused the records.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
13. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
taken note of the pleadings and evidence led in by the parties.
The categoric finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court is that plaintiffs except pleading that the suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties, have not placed any
material on record as to the source/nucleus of the joint family
property which enabled purchase of the said properties. The
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also taken note of
the fact that, though the terms 'ancestral properties', 'joint
family properties' have been elaborately used by the plaintiffs,
they have not specifically mentioned as to which of the items of
the suit properties are the joint family/ancestral properties.
Going through the material evidence placed by the defendant
No.1 with regard to he acquiring the property, except item
No.4, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have come
to the conclusion that in the absence of plaintiffs providing any
material evidence with regard to existence of the joint family
property as nucleus which was capable enough for purchasing
the properties by the defendant No.1, declined to accept the
case of the plaintiff of the properties being the joint family
properties. As regard the suit item No.4 is concerned, even
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13351
according to the defendant No.1, admittedly it was a house
property and the same had been divided during the lifetime of
late Siddappa their father and that all the members of the joint
family are residing in their respective separate shares. Which
factor has not been disputed by the plaintiff. Thus in the
absence of the material evidence with regard to existence of
the ancestral/joint family properties produced by the plaintiffs,
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit
for partition as sought for by the plaintiffs.
14. Thus, no irregularity or illegality can be found with the
said reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question
of law would arise for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RL
