Karnataka High Court
Smt. Parvathi vs Smt. Puttamma on 31 July, 2024
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30215
RFA No.446 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.446 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHI
W/O RAJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT AREKALHOSALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 112.
Digitally
signed by ...APPELLANT
MALATESH
KC (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M. ADV.,)
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE SANNARANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. SRI. JAYARAM
S/O LATE SANNARANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE SANNARANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
4. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE SANNARANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE
RESIDING AT AREKALHOSALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 112.
5. SRI. SATISH
S/O V.V. ANANTHAKUMAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30215
RFA No.446 of 2017
OWNER OF LATHANGI MOTORS (P) LTD.,
(LATHANGI POARD), NO.688
100 FEET RING ROAD, 15TH CROSS
J.P. NAGAR, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 078.
6. SMT. JAYANTHI
W/O LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT YARALLI VILLAGE
KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK-573 128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. CAUVERY V. GOWDA, ADV., FOR
SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV., FOR R5
SRI. C.S. HIREMATH, ADV., FOR R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.4.2015 PASSED IN OS
NO.188/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.188/2012 filed by the plaintiffs
Jayanthi and Parvathi, who are the wives of Lokesh and
NC: 2024:KHC:30215
Rangegowda respectively, and daughters of the first defendant-
Puttamma and her husband Late Sannarangegowda. The suit
was filed for partition.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the appeal are as under:
The suit property was sold by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in
favour of defendant No.5 on 24.10.1985. The said alienation
was questioned by the plaintiffs stating that their interest has
been alienated without there being any family necessity and it
was legal necessity or for the family benefit. The suit on contest
came to be dismissed.
4. It is to be noticed that, as on the date of alienation,
both the plaintiffs are not even born. Accordingly, they cannot
maintain a suit for partition, when the alienation has taken
place earlier to their birth.
5. It is also pertinent to note that defendant Nos.2 to
4 are the other children of the first defendant and
Sannarangegowda. They did not challenge the sale nor
objected the sale.
NC: 2024:KHC:30215
6. Under such circumstances, person who has not
even born at the time of the alienation cannot question the
alienation on the ground of want of legal and family necessity,
though the plaintiffs are born to Puttamma and
Sannarangegowda.
7. Accordingly, there is no merit in any one of the
grounds in the appeal memorandum so as to admit the appeal
for further consideration.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is merit less and hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
ABK
