Karnataka High Court
Smt V Hemalatha vs Sri N Veerabhadrappa on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
RSA No. 1887 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1887 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. V. HEMALATHA
W/O K. NAGARAJU
D/O N. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/OF HANGALA VILLAGE AND POST
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 111.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA AND
LATE MARAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S
2. SRI. V. MAHADEVASWAMY
Location: High
Court of Karnataka S/O N VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3. SRI. V. GIRISH
S/O N VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT GEJJAGAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDAKALLI DAKHALE
KASABA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
RSA No. 1887 of 2018
4. SRI. S.L. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.788/90
12TH CROSS RAMANUJA ROAD,
MYSURU-570 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 TO R3 NOTICE SERVED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.239/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2017
PASSED IN O.S.NO.737/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the
judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 in R.A. No.239/2017
on the file of III Addl Dist. Judge, Mysuru confirming the
Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2017 in O.S. No. 737/2012
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru, decreeing
the suit in part.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred with
reference to their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff / appellant before the Trial Court
in nutshell are that, the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and 3 are the
children of defendant No.1. It is further stated in the appeal
that defendant No.1 without the consent of the plaintiff, sold
item No.1 schedule property in favour of defendant No.4,
though, the item No.1 schedule property is the joint family
property of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is further
stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is having legitimate right in
respect of the schedule properties and as such, plaintiff has
filed O.S. No. 737/2012 on the file of the Trial Court seeking
1/4th share in respect of the suit schedule properties.
4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance
and filed written statement denying the averments made in the
plaint. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, has
formulated issues for its consideration. In order to prove the
case, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got marked six
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.4 was examined as
D.W.1 and he produced three documents and same were
marked as Exs.D1 to D3. The Trial Court, after considering the
material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated
28.02.2017 partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is
entitled for 1/4th share in respect of the item No.2 of the
schedule properties, however, dismissed the suit in respect of
the item No.1 of the schedule properties.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred
R.A. No.239/2017 on the file of the First Appellate Court and
appeal was resisted by the respondents. The First Appellate
Court, after considering the material on record, by its Judgment
and Decree dated 20.03.2018, dismissed the appeal,
consequently confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated
28.02.2017 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.737/2012.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this
appeal.
6. I have heard Sri. P. Nataraju, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. N. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel
for respondent No.4.
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the
Courts below have failed to consider the fact that as on the
date of execution of the sale deed by the defendant No.1 in
favour of defendant No.4 i.e., 21.03.2003, the appellant /
plaintiff had attained the age of majority and therefore, consent
of the plaintiff / appellant was required to be made at the time
of execution of the registered Sale Deed. Accordingly, the
appellant sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri. N. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned
counsel for respondent No.4, sought to justify the impugned
Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below and
submitted that in terms of proviso to Section 6A of the Hindu
Succession Act, no interference is called for in this appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties on careful examination of the finding recorded by both
the Courts below, it is not in dispute with regard to relationship
between the parties. The genealogical tree of the parties is as
under:
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
Sri. N. Veerabhadrappa
(Defendant No.1)
Smt. V. Hemalatha Sri. V. Mahadevaswamy Sri. V. Girish
(Plaintiff No.1) (Defendant No.2) (Defendant No.3)
10. Perusal of the genealogical tree would indicate that
defendant No.1 had three children namely defendant No.2 and
3 and the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 has purchased item No.1 of
the schedule property as per registered Sale Deed dated
21.03.2003. Taking into consideration the fact that the Trial
Court has arrived at the conclusion that item No.2 of the
schedule properties is the joint family property of the plaintiff
and defendant Nos.1 to 3, rightly decreed the suit in part in
respect of the item No.2 of the schedule properties and with
regard to the same, the appellant / plaintiff has no grievance.
However, in so far as item No.1 of schedule properties is
concerned, it is the grievance of the appellant / plaintiff that as
the plaintiff has attained the age of majority as on the date of
execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.2003, the
NC: 2024:KHC:29903
sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.4 is void in so far as the plaintiff is concerned.
11. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the
proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, wherein the
plaintiff is also coparcener to the joint family property,
however, as the said property has been sold by defendant No.1
on 21.03.2003, having applied proviso to Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, the sale deed executed on 21.03.2003
by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 is saved.
12. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the
appeal as the appellant has not made out a case for formation
of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of
the Civil Procedure Code.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
