[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Radha vs Sri Sridhara on 17 December, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:53848
                                                       RSA No. 1552 of 2022


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1552 OF 2022 (PAR)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. RADHA W/O MANJU
                         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                         NO.13, 14TH CROSS
                         ITTAMADU, V.B. BAKERY
                         BENGLAURU CITY-560085.

                   2.    SMT. SHOBHA W/O GURURAJ
                         AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                         NO.107, C-BLOCK, 2ND CROSS
                         RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPU MARGA
                         MAHADEVAPURA
                         MYSURU CITY-571514.
                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
                   AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          1.     SRI. SRIDHARA
                          S/O K. SWAMY
                          AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                          R/O JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
                          MELUKOTE HOBLI
                          PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571431.

                   2.     SRI. NARASIMHEGOWDA
                          S/O PUTTEGOWDA
                          AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
                          (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE)
                          -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:53848
                                   RSA No. 1552 of 2022


HC-KAR




2(a) SMT. PUTTAMMA
     W/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     R/O. JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
     MELUKOTE HOBLI
     PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571431.

3.   SRI. N. VIJAYAKUMAR
     S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEASR

     RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE THE
     R/AT JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
     MELUKOTE HOBLI
     PANDVAPURA TALUK-571431.

4.   SRI. N. BOREGOWDA
     S/O KADINIGEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     R/O HARALAHLALI
     NEW EXTENSION
     KASABA HOBLI
     PANDAVAPURA TAULK-571426
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
R2(a) - SERVED)
     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42
RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5005/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 05.12.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.49/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
PANDAVAPURA AND ETC.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                -3-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:53848
                                          RSA No. 1552 of 2022


HC-KAR




                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed against the judgment of the

First Appellate Court wherein the First Appellate Court set aside

the finding of the Trial Court in respect of Item No.1 of the suit

schedule property is concerned and confirmed the partition in

respect of other items of the suit property is concerned.

2. The very contention of the counsel appearing for

the appellants before this Court that First Appellate Court

committed an error in sitting aside the judgment of the Trial

Court in respect of Item No.1 of the suit property is concerned

when the appellants are not at all parties/executants to the sale

deed dated 24.08.2006 and 19.05.2010 respectively. It is not

at all necessary for the appellants to seek declaration or

cancellation of the said sale deeds. On the said sole ground, the

First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court in respect of item No.1 is concerned and the same is

against the principles of natural justice. Hence this Court has to

admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent

No.1 would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court

while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court taken note of

the evidence of PW1 as well as the recitals of the document of

the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 which

shows that on the very same day, the father, brother and

mother who have sold the property in favour of defendant No.3

have purchased the property i.e., house property bearing

number 203/2004 for a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- and sale was

made only to the tune of Rs.60,000/- while executing the

document in terms of Ex.D2 and house was purchased more

than the sale consideration. The First Appellate Court in detail

discussed the same in paragraphs 22 to 26 and held that

intelligently, the plaintiff has not included the property which

was purchased subsequent to the sale of the property that is

Item No.1 in the suit for the reason is best known to the

plaintiff and hence, no ground is made out to admit this appeal.

4. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also the

counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the following

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this

Court is:

Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error

in reversing the finding of the Trial Court in respect

of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and

whether the said finding amounts to perversity?

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties and also considering the material and record,

it discloses that there is no dispute with regard to the

relationship between the parties is concerned and also not in

dispute that suit is filed by the married daughters who are the

plaintiffs in O.S.No.49/2014. The main contention is that all the

joint family properties are of both plaintiffs and defendant No.1

and 2 and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of

the same. But defendant No.4 took the contention that suit is

bad for non-inclusion of the entire joint family property and

also contended that in view of the sale deed dated 24.08.2006

in favour of defendant No.3 and subsequent sale deed dated

19.05.2010 in favour of defendant No.2, the suit is barred by

limitation. The defendant No.4 also took the contention that

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

seeking the relief of declaration declaring the sale deeds dated

24.08.2006 and 19.05.2010 as null and void and not binding on

them in the present form of suit for partition and separate

possession is not maintainable. Also took the contention that

defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 are the bona fide

purchaser of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and suit is

also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. The Trial Court having considered the material

record, no doubt, comes to the conclusion that suit schedule

properties are the joint family properties while answering the

Issue No.1. But answered the Issue Nos.2 to 7 as negative and

failed to consider the documentary evidence placed before the

Court and erroneously comes to the conclusion that entitled for

the share in respect of all the properties are concerned. But the

fact is that property was sold by the defendants in favour of

defendant No.3 on 24.08.2006. It has to be noted that when

the document of Ex.D1 is produced i.e., copy of the sale deed

dated 24.08.2006 as well as document of Ex.D2 sale deed

dated 24.08.2006 and also Ex.D3 sale dated 19.05.2010 i.e.,

subsequent purchaser - defendant No.4, failed to consider the

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

both oral and documentary evidence and particularly, answer

elicited from the mouth of PW1 during the course of cross-

examination.

7. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both

oral and documentary evidence available on record, taken note

of in paragraph 22 that sale deed dated 24.08.2006 i.e., Ex.D2,

it was specifically recited by the vendors that they have sold

the suit property in order to purchase a residential house for

their residence. Hence, taken note of that now it is the duty of

the Court to see as to whether after receipt of sale

consideration of Rs.60,000/-, defendant Nos.1, 2 and

Puttamma have purchased any house property or not.

Defendant No.4 has produced certified copy of sale deed dated

24.08.2006 as per Ex.D1. A reading of Ex.D1 would show that

as on 24.08.2006 itself, Puttamma and the defendant No.2

have purchased the house property bearing No.203/2004

consisting a house and site from Defendant No.3 - Boregowda

for a sum of Rs.2,23,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the sale

consideration amount received as per the sale deed in Ex.D2

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

has been utilised for the purchase of house property and site

bearing No.203/2004.

8. The First Appellate Court in paragraph 23 taken

note of that the plaintiffs being the married daughters of

defendant No.1 and sisters of defendant No.2, have not made

any allegation against their parents and defendant No.2 that

they have been indulged in immoral activities and they have

used sale consideration amount for their immoral purpose.

Even further observation is made in paragraph 24 that sale

consideration is only Rs.60,000/- in terms of Ex.D2 that too a

sale of Item No.1. But house property was purchased for a sum

of Rs.2,23,000/-. Apart from that, First Appellate Court also

taken note of recitals of Ex.D2 wherein mentioned that sale

consideration was utilized by the mother and the brother and

acquired property number 203/2004. But in an ingenious

method, the plaintiffs have not included the property which was

purchased under Ex.D1. The First Appellate Court made an

observation that the plaintiffs have not chosen to include this

property in the suit for the best reasons known to them.

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

9. In paragraph 25 also made an observation that it is

the duty of the Court to find out as to whether defendant No.1,

2 and Puttamma have discharged their duty and whether their

act is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs or not. It is

also the definite evidence of PW1 that the defendant No.1 has

performed the marriage of plaintiffs. It is also her evidence that

since beginning, her father Narasimhe Gowda was engaged in

the development of the family. This unequivocal admission

elicited from the mouth of PW1 makes it very clear that

defendant No.1 - Narasimhe Gowda has taken care of the

family and was aimed for the development of the family.

Further evidence is that at no point of time, either her father,

mother or younger brother have received them and no such

pleadings also. The cumulative effect of the evidence of PW1 in

cross-examination is that Narasimhe Gowda was acted as karta

of the family and taken care of the family and interested in the

development of the family. So, no fault can be attached to the

act of the Narasimhe Gowda in alienating Item No.1 property in

favour of defendant No.3.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

10. Even in paragraph 26 also taken note of that

though plaintiffs have simply stated that defendant No.1 and 2

have concocted some documents in respect of the Item No.1 of

property in favour of defendant No.3, they have not produced

at least certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.08.2006 under

which defendant No.1 and 2 and Puttamma have jointly sold

Item No.1 of the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 and

not only suppressed the said document even not included the

property which was purchased on the very same day by the

family members and intelligently not included the same while

filing this suit. All these factors were taken note of by the First

Appellate Court. Even the reasoned order has been passed by

the First Appellate Court considering both oral and

documentary evidence which has not been discussed by the

Trial Court while granting the relief in respect of Item No.1 is

concerned. Thus, I do not find any error on the part of First

Appellate Court in reversing the finding of the Trial Court in

respect of Item No.1 is concerned. Hence, there is no merit to

reverse the finding of First Appellate Court. Having considered

the material on record, it discloses that it is a vexatious suit by

married daughters knowingfully well that the brother and

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53848

HC-KAR

parents, out of the sale consideration purchased the house

property and not included the said property but questioned the

sale made in favour of defendant and hence, liable to dismiss

the same with exemplary cost for frivolous litigation.

11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

Cost is payable to the registry within two weeks from

today. If cost is not paid, registry is directed to recover the

same in accordance with law.