Karnataka High Court
H B Ranganath vs Mrs. Gayathri on 7 February, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
RSA No. 2222 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2222 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
H B RANGANATH
S/O LATE H. BHEEMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT D.NO.23/1
6TH CROSS, D BANUMAIAH ROAD
K R MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 004.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. DHANUSHRI R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. GAYATHRI
D/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT D NO.678
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N 2ND CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR
Location: High BOGADI CHAMARAJA MOHALLA
Court of MYSURU - 570 026.
Karnataka
2. NAGARAJ
S/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. SANNEGOWDA
S/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
RSA No. 2222 of 2023
4. MRS SAROJAMMA
D/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
5. MRS LAKSHMAMMA
D/O NATHEGOWDA @ CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF CHIKKANKANAHALLI KASABA (H),
SRIRANGAPATNA (T),
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED IN
RA NO.5001/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT
SRIRANGAPATNA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2016
PASSED IN OS NO.37/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant being the purchaser of the schedule
property is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.37/2013 dated 30.07.2016
on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
short) by which the suit for partition filed by the
respondent No.1/plaintiff was decreed granting 1/15th
share in the suit schedule property which is confirmed in
R.A.No.5001/2017 dated 14.09.2022 on the file of III
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at
Srirangapatna) (hereinafter referred to as the 'First
Appellate Court' for short).
2. The above suit was filed by the respondent
No.1/plaintiff claiming suit schedule property to be the
joint family property consisting of herself and defendant
Nos. 1 to 4. It is further contended that defendant Nos. 1
to 4 without making plaintiff as a party and without her
knowledge and consent had alienated the suit property in
favour of the defendant No.5 who is appellant before this
Court in terms of the deed of sale dated 14.07.2006.
3. The Trial Court after having recorded and
appreciated the material evidence on record decreed the
suit granting 1/15th share to the plaintiff and that further
decreed the sale deed dated 14.07.2006 executed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.5 in
respect of the suit schedule property was not binding on
the plaintiff insofar as her 1/15th share of the suit schedule
property is concerned.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.5
preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.5001/2017. The First
Appellate Court having framed the points for consideration
based on the grounds urged in the appeal and on re-
appreciation of the evidence dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this
Court.
5. Smt.Dhanushri R, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal vehemently submitted that the
appellant is a bonafide purchaser and that the defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 had suppressed the fact of plaintiff being the
member of the joint family. It is her submission that
appellant had paid the entire sale consideration and her
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
name has also been entered in the revenue records. It is
further contended that since the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had
exerted fraud and deceit on the appellant, and the plaintiff
not having proved her relationship with the defendant
Nos.1 to 4 in the manner known to law, Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court were not justified in decreeing
the suit. Hence, she submits that substantial question of
law would not arise for consideration.
6. Per contra, Sri.Sagar B.B, learned counsel for
the respondents submits that the fact of suit schedule
property being joint family property is not in dispute. The
plaintiff being the member of the joint family property is
also not in dispute. It is his case that sale deed to the
extent of shares of defendant Nos.1 to 4 has remained
unaffected and the appellant could might as well work out
her remedy of seeking equity in the final decree
proceedings before the Trial Court to the extent of shares
conveyed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4.
7. Heard. Perused the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
8. When the appellant contends that he was
mislead by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 with regard to the
plaintiff being member of the joint family, he cannot be
heard to contend that the plaintiff is not a member of the
joint family. If appellant was aware, which he admits, that
suit schedule property to be the joint family property it
was incumbent upon the appellant to have exercised all
the diligence before entering into the sale transaction. No
material evidence is placed on record in that regard. No
evidence is also produced in the nature of witnesses
examined on behalf of the defendants in support of
contention of the appellant having been mislead by
defendant Nos.1 to 4 regarding plaintiff not being the
member of the joint family. Nothing prevented the
appellant to have examined his own vendors in support of
his contention of plaintiff not being the member of the
joint family. That being the fact the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court having take into consideration of the
factual aspect of the matter have arrived at just conclusion
NC: 2024:KHC:5274
in decreeing the suit granting 1/15th share to the
respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit schedule property.
9. No infirmity or illegality can be found with the
reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law
would arise for consideration.
10. Needless to state that appellant being the
purchaser of the property from other co-sharers/co-
owners is entitled to seek equity to the extent of the
shares which have been allotted to his vendors.
11. With the above observation, appeal is dismissed
and in view of dismissal of the appeal all pending
applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RU
