Smt S K Parimala vs Sri S K Ponnappa @ Vijay Sagaar Manir
2024 Latest Caselaw 3962 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt S K Parimala vs Sri S K Ponnappa @ Vijay Sagaar Manir on 8 February, 2024

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:5361
                                                      CRP No. 70 of 2024




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
                      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.70 OF 2024 (IO)

               BETWEEN:

               1.    SMT. S.K. PARIMALA
                     D/O. LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
                     W/O. H. SHASHIDHAR
                     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.192, 'SKANDA MAYURI',
                     NEAR BASAVANAPURA,
                     K.B.L. GARDENIA IV STAGE,
                     VIJAYANAGARA
                     MYSURU-570 018.

                                                              ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)

Digitally      AND:
signed by H
K HEMA
               1.    SRI S.K. PONNAPPA @ VIJAY SAGAAR MANIR
Location:
High Court           S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
of Karnataka         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

               2.    SRI S.K. CHIDANANDA
                     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
                     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

               3.    SRI S.K. RAVINDRA
                     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
                     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                     ALL ARE R/AT NO.MIG-18,
                     SRI SIDDHI VINAYAKA
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:5361
                                          CRP No. 70 of 2024




     MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD,
     GANGOTHRI LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 009.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO.1377/2022, ON
THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM.,
MYSURU, AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2024, PASSED ON I.A. NO.2, BY THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MYSURU, AND BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION I.A. NO.2 IN O.S.
NO.1377/2022, WITH COSTS OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE
ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2024 passed on

I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1377/2022 by the III Additional Senior

Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, the defendant therein has

preferred this Civil Revision petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per the status before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiffs and defendant are brothers and sister.

Plaintiffs preferred O.S.No.1377/2022 contending that the

suit schedule property is the joint family property of their

NC: 2024:KHC:5361

father and the defendant misusing the unsound mind of

their late father got the gift deed executed in her favour in

respect of the suit schedule property. For the said reason,

in O.S.No.1377/2022, they have prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the following manner;

a) for a partition and separate possession of 3/4th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs by meets and bounds;

b) to declare that, the alleged bogus gift deed dated 30-12-2021, registered as vide document no.MYS-1-07469-2021-22, stored in C.D.No.MYSD1088, registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Mysuru South, executed by the deceased S.C.Krishnappa in favour of the defendant herein in respect of the suit schedule

NC: 2024:KHC:5361

property is not binding on the plaintiffs in any manner.

c) for a permanent injunction by restraining the defendant or her agents anyone claiming through her from alienating or creating any charge over the suit schedule property in favour of any third parties;

d) for cost and such other relief/s, as this Hon'ble Court might deem to fit to grant in the circumstances of the case."

4. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs are

vagabonds and they did not take care of their father and

their late father was taken care by the defendant and

because of which and also because of love and affection,

he executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant and

that the said property is self acquired property of their late

father and he has legally gifted the same in favour of the

defendant and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest

over the same.

5. However, the trial Court on the ground that whether

the property was a self acquired property of the late father

NC: 2024:KHC:5361

of plaintiffs and defendant and whether the gift deed

executed is valid or not, is a matter of trial and cannot be

rejected at the preliminary stage, dismissed the

interlocutory application filed by the defendant.

6. I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial

Court.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision

petition is hereby dismissed.

8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VMB