Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagappa S/O Late Ramaiah vs Sri. N. Khaleel S/O Late Sri. Noor Sab on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
RFA No. 325 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2011 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED 62 YEARS, (SINCE DEAD BY LRS)SMT.
SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED 56 YEARS,
R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTRAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2. SRI. MANJUNAT
AGED 35 YEARSS/O LATE NAGAPPA R/A GOTTIGERE
VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
3. SRI ASHOKA
AGED 33 YEARSS/O LATE NAGAPPA R/A GOTTIGERE
Digitally signed VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
by BELUR
RANGADHAMA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
NANDINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY
KARNATAKA AGED 31 YEARSS/O LATE NAGAPPA R/A GOTTIGERE
VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
5. SMT. KANTHAMMA
AGED 65 YEARSW/O LATE PILLAPPAR/A
JAMBUSAVARI DINNE, J P NAGAR8TH PHASE,
BANGALORE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
RFA No. 325 of 2011
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED 60 YEARSW/O SRI. B NANJAPPA R/A NO. 200,
JALAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE560 013.
7. SMT. SAROJAMMA
AGED 55 YEARSW/O SRI. APPAIAHR/A NO. 56, B S K
III STAGE, BANGALORE560 085.
8. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED 45 YEARSW/O A B NAGARAJ, R/A MELUR,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, KOLAR DIST.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N N RAJ URS.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. KHALEEL S/O LATE SRI. NOOR SAB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO. 5/84, L I C
COLONY, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD LAYOUT EAST,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE560011.
2. SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O LATE S RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANNERUGHATTA TALUK,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK DEAD BY LRS SMT.
KANAKAMM W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA AGED 59
YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE.
3. SMT. S RADHAMMA W/O EERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A TIRUMENAHALLI,
BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
4. SMT. S NAGAVENI W/O P SHANKA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A JAMBOOSAVRI DINNE, J
P NAGAR8TH PHASE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
RFA No. 325 of 2011
5. SMT. S SUJATHA @ SUDHA W/O R K RAMU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A GOTTIGERE VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6. SMT. S RAMAMAN W/O K CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A GOPALAPURA, BAGLUR
ROAD, MANDOOR POST, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
7. R CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT BAGHYAMMA W/O
LATE R CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O
GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI
HOBLIBANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
8. SMT. ARCHANA D/O R CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARSR/A DODDA HAGADA
VILLAGE, C D HOSKOTE POST, ANEKAL
TALUK,BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
9. SMT. VINEETHA D/O LATE R CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARSR/A NALLAIAHANA DODDI
VILLAGE, THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST, ANEKAL
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R1- N KHALEEL SD.,ADVOCATE;
RESPONDENTS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 TO
3 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
15.11.2010 PASSED IN O.S.4893/2005 ON THE FILE OF
THE XLIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-
44, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE
DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
RFA No. 325 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well
as the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.4893/2005 on the file of XLIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
3. The above suit is filed seeking relief of
declaration that the sale deed executed by mother of the
plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1, as null and void. The
plaintiffs claim that the property belongs to their father
Sri. Ramaiah. It is also their contention that the said
Sri. Ramaiah died in the year 1982 leaving behind three
sons and four daughters and it is further stated that after
the death of Sri. Ramaiah, name of his wife is entered in
the property record. However, there was no relinquishment
of right by remaining class-I heirs of Sri. Ramaiah, in
favour of his wife. The suit is filed on the premise that the
property is allegedly sold by plaintiffs' mother in favour of
defendant No.1 without the consent and the knowledge of
the plaintiffs.
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
4. The suit was contested by defendant No.1.
Defendant No.1 took a stand that the property belongs to
the mother of the plaintiffs.
5. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence has
concluded that the mother of the plaintiffs was the owner
of the property and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said
suit, the plaintiffs are in appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would submit that the Trial Court committed a grave error
in holding that the property exclusively belongs to the
mother of the plaintiffs. He would submit that the property
in fact belongs to the father of the plaintiffs and after his
demise, the plaintiffs and their mother jointly inherited the
property and mother could not have sold the property
without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would also
invite the attention of this Court to the application under
Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
Procedure, 1908, which is filed before this Court along with
certified copy of the mutation No.1/1998-99 pertaining to
the suit property and other properties. Referring to the said
document, he would contend that the document would
reveal that the property originally belonged to the father of
the plaintiffs and mother of the plaintiffs was not the
absolute owner. She inherited the property along with the
plaintiffs' and the remaining children. Thus, he would
contend that the finding of the Trial Court is erroneous
inasmuch as the property is not the exclusive property of
the plaintiffs' mother. The respondents though served are
not present before this Court.
9. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the Bar and also perused the record.
10. The following points arise for consideration.
(a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding
that the suit property is the exclusive property
of the mother of the plaintiffs.
(b) Whether the appellants have made out a
ground for production of additional documents."
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
11. Since the suit is filed challenging the sale deed
executed by plaintiffs' mother, on the premise that the
property belonged to the plaintiffs' father and after the
demise of the plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs' mother and
the plaintiffs' jointly inherited the property, the Court has
to consider whether there are any materials placed before
the Court to hold that the properties are the ancestral
property of the plaintiffs. Before the Trial Court except
raising a contention that the property is the ancestral
property, no material is placed before this Court. However,
before this Court, the certified copy of mutation
No.1/1998-99 is produced to substantiate the contention
that the property in dispute was indeed the property of the
plaintiffs' father and after his demise in 1982, the
properties were transferred to the name of mother of the
plaintiffs namely Smt. Seethamma. This document was
not produced before the Trial Court. However, an
application is filed before this Court seeking leave of the
Court to produce additional documents. Respondents
though served are not present before this Court and
objection is not filed to the said application. Since the
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
document, which is sought to be produced is the certified
copy of the public record, this Court is of the view that the
document relating to succession after the death of
Sri. Ramaiah is a relevant document to be considered to
decide the controversy.
12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the application for production of additional
document is to be allowed and accordingly, same is
allowed.
13. Since respondents are not before this Court,
this Court is of the view that the matter is to be remitted to
the Trial Court to afford an opportunity to the respondents
to have their say on the additional document, which is
sought to be produced.
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The impugned judgment and decree dated
15.11.2010 on the file of XLIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore are set
aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:9333
ii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with
liberty reserved to both the parties to lead
additional evidence.
iii) The Trial Court shall consider the case afresh
based on the additional evidence as well as the
evidence already recorded and to pass
appropriate order without being influenced by
any of the observations made in this order.
iv) Registry to return the additional document
produced before this Court after retaining the
xerox copy, to the appellants.
v) Registry to send back the Trial Court Records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PHM
