Karnataka High Court
Virupakshappa vs Sri S Maralusiddappa on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
RSA No. 1582 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1582 OF 2015
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. NAGARAJAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. MUNIYAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
4. AJJAHAIAH
Digitally signed S/O BASAPPA,
by R DEEPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. PRABHAKARA
KARNATAKA S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
6. RAJAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
7. SURESHA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
RSA No. 1582 of 2015
8. SATISHA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
9. M C NARAPPA
S/O CHIGATERAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
BASTHIHALLI VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI S MARALUSIDDAPPA
S/O PRABHULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O BANASHANKARI BADAVANE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK 577001
DAVANGERE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2013 PASSED IN
RA NO.6/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT-V CHITRADURGA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
14.2.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.258/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
RSA No. 1582 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2013,
passed in R.A.No.6/2012 by the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and MACT-V, Chitradurga, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 14.02.2012 passed in O.S.No.258/2002
by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
appellant Nos.1 to 8 are the legal representatives of
plaintiff No.1 and appellant No.9 is the plaintiff No.2 and
respondent is the defendant .
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this
appeal are as under:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and cancellation
of registered sale deed and permanent injunction. It is the
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
case of the plaintiffs that, one Shanthappa was the original
propositus. He had two sons, namely, Muniyappa and
Hanumappa. The plaintiff No.1 and deceased Chigaterappa
are the sons of Muniyappa. Plaintiff No.2 is the son of
deceased Chigaterappa. Hanumappa had a son by name
Basavalingappa. The original propositus died long back.
The suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the ancestral
properties of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the wife of
Basavalingappa by name Smt. Ningavva had filed a suit
against Channavva w/o Shanthappa in O.S.No.539/1926-
27 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chitradurga. The said suit
was ended in compromise and as per the compromise
decree, the said Smt. Ningavva was entitled to enjoy the
suit schedule properties till her death. It is contended that
the defendant approached the plaintiff No.1 on 01.01.2002
to handover the possession of the suit schedule properties
and claim that he had purchased the same under the
registered sale deed. On enquiry, the plaintiff No.1 came
to know that Smt. Ningavva sold the said land in favour of
the defendant. It is contended that Smt. Ningavva had no
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
right to execute registered sale deed in favour of the
defendant as she was having a limited right in the suit
schedule properties by virtue of compromise decree
passed in O.S.No.539/1926-27. It is contended that the
defendant has not acquired any title by virtue of sale deed
and further the sale deed is void abinitio. Hence, prayed
to decree the suit.
4. Defendant filed the written statement denying
the plaint averments contending that Smt. Ningavva was
the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule
properties and defendant purchased the suit schedule
properties under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1991
for valuable consideration and Smt. Ningavva put the
defendant in possession of the suit schedule properties. On
the basis of the registered sale deed, name of the
defendant was entered in the revenue records as a owner
in possession. The defendant is paying land revenue to
the suit schedule properties. It is contended that, the
plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
schedule properties. It is contended that the defendant is
a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. Hence
prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said
pleadings, framed the issues. The plaintiffs in order to
prove the case, son of plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1
and examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got
marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to 9. In rebuttal,
defendant examined herself as DW-1 and got examined
two witnesses as DWs-2 & DW-3 and got marked 22
documents as Exs.D1 to D22. The trial Court after
assessing the oral and documentary evidence of the
parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated
14.02.2012.
6. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed in the above said suit, filed an appeal in
R.A.No.6/2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and MACT V, Chitradurga. The First Appellate Court, after
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
hearing the parties, has framed the points for
consideration and on re-assessment of oral and
documentary evidence dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
7. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgments and
decree passed by the courts below, have filed this second
appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that
Smt. Ningavva was given the suit schedule properties for
her enjoyment till her death in terms of compromise
decree passed in O.S.No.539/1926-27 and she become a
limited owner as per Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956' for
brevity). He submits that she has no right to execute a
registered sale deed in favour of the defendant. He
submits that the sale deed executed by Smt. Ningavva in
favour of the defendant is void abinitio and the defendant
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
has not acquired any title over the suit schedule properties
by virtue of registered sale deed. He submits that the
present case falls within the purview of Section 14(2) of
the Act, 1956 and not under Section 14(1) of the Act,
1956. He submits that the courts below have committed
an error in recording a finding that Smt. Ningavva became
the full owner by virtue of compromise decree passed in
O.S.No.539/1926-27 as per Section 14(1) of the Act,
1956. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the
appeal.
10. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
11. It is not in dispute that, the suit schedule
properties were owned by original propositus by name
Shanthappa. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.539/1926-
27 and the said suit was ended in compromise and
compromise decree was drawn. In the compromise decree,
the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
Smt. Ningavva. The plaintiff has produced the compromise
decree marked as Ex.P1. Though there is a recital in the
compromise decree that Smt. Ningavva acquired the suit
schedule properties and she should enjoy the suit schedule
properties till her life time and the said property was
allotted to her in lieu of her maintenance. There is a
restriction imposed on Smt. Ningavva from alienating the
suit schedule properties. In order to consider the case in
hand, it is necessary to examine Section 14 of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 which reads as under:
14. Property of a female Hindu to be her
absolute property.―(1) Any property possessed
by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after
the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her
as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation―In this sub-section, "property"
includes both movable and immovable property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise,
or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears
of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether
a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or
by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
and also any such property held by her as stridhana
immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall
apply to any property acquired by way of gift or
under a will or any other instrument or under a
decree or order of a civil court or under an award
where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument
or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted
estate in such property.
12. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a codifying
enactment and has made far reaching changes in the
structure of Hindu law of inheritance and succession. The
Act confers upon Hindu females full rights of inheritance
and sweeps away the traditional limitation on her powers
of disposition which were regarded under Hindu law as
inherent in her estate. Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 is
wide in its scope and ambit and uses language of great
amplitude. It say that any property possessed by a female
Hindu whether acquired before or after the
commencement of the Act shall be held by her as a full
owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Section 14(2) of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
the Act, provides that nothing contained in Sub Section (1)
shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or
under a Will or any other instrument or under a decree or
Order of Civil Court or any award, where, the terms of gift,
Will or other instrument or the decree etc., prescribe a
restricted estate in such a property. At this stage, it would
be worthwhile to set out the compromise decree passed in
O.S.No.539/1926-27, the same reads as follows:
'¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ fêÀ£ÁA±ÀPÉÆÌøÀÌgÀªÀzÀ ªÁ¢ ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ
©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ .................................... ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß
fêÀ£À ¥ÀAiÀÄðAvÀgÀ C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, DPÉUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ, ¨sÉÆÃUÀå, ªÀUÉÊgÉ,
¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt £ÀAvÀgÀ F ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ¸ÀAvÀwUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.'
13. From the perusal of a relevant portion of the
compromise decree, it discloses that the suit schedule
properties were allotted to Smt. Ningavva, who is a widow
for her maintenance and there is a restriction clause in the
compromise decree. The plaintiff No.1 in the course of
cross examination admitted the maintenance right of Smt.
Ningavva and she has acquired her share under a
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
compromise decree would fall within the ambit of Section
14(1) of the Act and further she was in possession of the
suit schedule properties under the said compromise
decree. Smt. Ningavva had a pre-existing right in the suit
schedule properties, as a result the life estate given to
Smt. Ningavva and she became an absolute owner of the
suit schedule properties by virtue of Section 14(1) of
Hindu Succession Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of V. TULASAMMA AND OTHERS VS. V.SHESHAREDDY (DEAD)
BY LRS , REPORTED IN AIR 1977 SCC 1944, held that if a
Hindu woman had any existing interest in a property,
howsoever, small, prior to the enactment of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, the same would blossom into a full-
fledged right by virtue of operation of Section 14(1)
thereof. On the other hand, if such a right was so
acquired for the first time under the instrument, after the
Act came into force, the provisions of Section 14(2) of the
Act would be attracted and not converse such a right into
full fledged right of ownership of property. Smt. Ningavva
acquired the right prior to 1956 and she was having a
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13889
existing right. The courts below placing reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly held that
Smt.Ningavva was the absolute owner of the suit schedule
properties and had a right to execute the registered sale
deed in favour of defendant. The courts below have
rightly recorded a finding and passed the impugned
judgments. Hence I do not find any substantial question of
law that arises for consideration in this appeal and any
error in the impugned judgments.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Judgments and decree passed by the
courts below are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
sks
