Karnataka High Court
Manjula D/O Kallappa Pujari vs Kallappa S/O Shankreppa Pujari on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
RSA No. 200178 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200178 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA D/O KALLAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : TALIKOTI,
TQ : MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST : VIJAYPUR-586214.
2 SUMITRA D/O KALLAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : TALIKOT,I
TQ : MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST : VIJAYPUR-586214.
3. SANTOSH S/O KALLAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,
R/O : TALIKOTI,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN TQ : MUDDEBIHAL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
DIST : VIJAYPUR-586214.
KARNATAKA
4. KAMALABIA W/O KALLAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : TALIKOTI,
TQ : MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST : VIJAYPUR-586214.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
RSA No. 200178 of 2015
AND:
1. KALLAPPA S/O SHANKREPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : ASHRAYA COLONY,
TALIKOTI,
TQ : MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST : VIJAYPUR-586214.
2. VENKATANNA S/O SIDRAMAPPA DORNAAHALLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O : ASHRAYA COLONY,
TALIKOTI,
TQ : MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST : VIJAYPUR-586214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE FOR R-3 SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED IN
(OLD) O.S. NO.237/2008(NEW) O.S NO.72/2011 BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDDEBIHAL AND WHICH
IS CONFIRMING IN R.A. NO.92/2013 VIDE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 03.01.2015 BY THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
BIJAPUR, AND CONSEQUENTLY DECREED THE SUIT OF
PLAINTIFFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
RSA No. 200178 of 2015
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the
judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015 passed in RA.No
92 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Bijapur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dated 30.01.2013 passed in
OS.No.72 of 2011 (Old No.237 of 2008) on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudebihal, dismissing the
suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs 1 to 3
and defendant No.2, claims to be children of plaintiff No. 4
and defendant No.1, have sought for partition in joint
family properties of defendant No.1. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that, defendant No.1, without any cause, sold the
suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3, on
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
07.06.2008 and the said Sale Deed is not binding on the
plaintiffs, and accordingly, the plaintiffs filed suit in OS
No.72 of 2011, (Old No.237 of 2008) on the file of the
Trial Court.
4. After service of summons, defendant No.1 reamined
absent and placed ex-parte, however, defendant No.1 has
appeared but has not filed written statement and only
defendant No.3 contested the matter.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has
formulated issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have
examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked
07 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the other hand,
defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and
DW2 and produced 07 documents and same were marked
as Exs.D1 to D7.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
7. The trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 30.01.2013
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by
the same, the plaintiffs have preferred Regular Appeal in
RA.No.92 of 2013 on the file of First Appellate Court and
the said appeal was resisted by the defendant No.3. The
First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the facts on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court in OS.No.72 of 2011.
Being aggrieved by the same plaintiff/appellants have
preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of
CPC.
8. I have heard Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri Mahantesh Patil,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
Perused the material on record.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
9. Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the reasons assigned by the both
the Courts below that the defendant No.1 has sold the
property for legal necessity is not correct and he further
submitted that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were minors at the time
of execution of registered Sale Deed and their consent was
not taken. Accordingly, sought for interference of this
Court.
10. Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 sought to justify the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the courts below.
11. On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the
relationship between the parties is not disputed and in
order to understand the relationship between the parties
the Genealogical Tree is extract as below:
Kallappa Poojari (Df No.1)
Kamalabai Pujari (Pf No.4)
Manjula Pujari Shrishail Pujari Sumitra Pujari Santhosh Pujari
(Pf No.1) (Df No.2) (Pf No.2) (Pf No.3)
Defendant No.3 is purchaser Venkatamma Doranalli
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
12. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs1 to 3 and
defendant No.2 are the children of defendant No.1 and
Plaintiff No.4. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that
defendant No.3 sold the property in question in favour of
defendant No.3 without consent of the plaintiffs and
against the interest of the plaintiffs. However, on perusal
of the finding recorded by the both the Courts below, it is
not in dispute that the property in question is a joint
family property. Registered Sale Deed as per Ex.D7, was
made in favour of the defendant No.3 for the family
necessity, taking into consideration that, the defendant
No.1 has got four children and for their well being and the
said fact is proved by taking into consideration the oral
evidence of the parties. In that view of the matter, as the
both the Courts below have concurred on facts, I do not
find material irregularities or perversity in the judgments
and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly,
the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Since, the plaintiff/appellants have not made out ground
for formulation of substantial question of law as required
NC: 2024:KHC-K:447
under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Regular
Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed at the Admission
stage itself, and accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
