Karnataka High Court
Shri Sachin S/O Mallappa Savadi vs Santosh Mallappa Savadi on 17 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
RSA No. 100489 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100489 OF 2024 (PAR-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SACHIN S/O. MALLAPPA SAVADI,
AGED 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O; KANAKUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANTOSH MALLAPPA SAVADI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O C/O SHANKARAPPA CHANNAPPA
ASUTI, AT BHAGAVATI,
TQ.& DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. DILSHADBEGUM
W/O BABASAHEB BHAGAVAN ALIAS BENAL
Digitally AGED. 62 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER
signed by R/O SHAIKH COMPOUND,
VN
BADIGER NEAR AIR STATION, DHARWAD-580001.
Location:
High
Court of 3. SRI. BABASAHEB
Karnataka, S/O IMAMSAB BHAGAVAN ALIAS BENAL
Dharwad
Bench AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
OCC PENSIONER,
R/O SHAIKH COMPUND
NEAR AIR, DHARWAD
TQ AND DIST DHARWAD 580001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JDUGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.02.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN R.S.NO.48/2022 AND THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
RSA No. 100489 of 2024
JUDGEMNT AND DECREE 02.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRICNIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.816/2012
AND CONSEQUENTLY DECREE THE SUIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the judgment
and decree dated 29.02.2024 in R.A.No.48/2022 passed by the
II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad dismissing
the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated
02.08.2022 in O.S. No.816/2012 passed by the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Dharwad dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 are the children of Mallappa Savadi. Defendant
No.2 and 3 are the purchasers of undivided share of the suit
schedule property from the father of plaintiff and defendant
No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule
property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 and the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1-
Mallappa Savadi, sold the said property in favour of defendant
No.2 and 3 as per the registered sale deed dated 21.09.2000
and it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was minor at
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
the time of the sale deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
said sale has been made without taking into consideration the
interest of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed
suit in O.S.No.816/2012 seeking share in the suit schedule
property and also stated that the sale deed executed by his
father-Mallappa in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 dated
21.09.2000 is not binding on the plaintiff.
2.1. On service of notice, defendants entered
appearance and filed written statements. Defendant No.1 has
filed his written statement supporting the contention of the
plaintiff and took up a contention that the sale deed made by
his father in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 is null and void
and without interest of the family and accordingly sought for
decree of the suit.
2.2. Defendants No.2 and 3 have filed their written
statement stating that the suit schedule property has been sold
on 21.09.2000 for valuable consideration and the defendants
No.2 and 3 are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is
also stated that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
has sold the property for welfare of the family and accordingly,
sought for dismissal of the suit.
2.3. The Trail Court based on the pleadings of the
parties, formulated issues for its consideration.
2.4. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff was
examined as PW1 and got marked 8 documents as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P8. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1
to DW3 and got marked 13 documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D13.
2.5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 02.08.2022
dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 48/2022 before the First
Appellate Court and the said appeal was contested by the
defendants.
2.6. The First Appellate Court, after considering the
material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
29.02.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.816/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
3. I have heard the submissions of Sri. P. R. Bentur,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. J.S.
Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-
caveator.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant that the suit schedule property is joint family
property of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their father
(Mallappa) and the said property has been illegally sold by their
father in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 as per the registered
sale deed dated 21.09.2000 and at the time of the sale, the
plaintiff was minor and accordingly, the interest of the plaintiff
was not taken into consideration. Accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel
appearing for the caveator-respondent No.3 sought to justify
the impugned order.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and on careful examination
of the relationship between the parties, the genealogical tree of
the plaintiff is extracted, which reads as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
Mallappa
Propositus died
Santosh Sachin
Defendant No.1 Plaintiff
7. Perusal of the genealogical tree would indicate that
the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the children of Mallappa
Savadi and the properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff
and defendant No.1. The said property was sold by the father
of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as per the registered sale
deed dated 21.09.2000 in favour of defendant No.2 and
defendant No.3. Having taken note of the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the recitals in
the sale deed dated 21.09.2000 would make it clear that the
sale was made for the purpose of legal necessity of the joint
family and as such, the finding recorded by the Trial Court at
Paragraph No.19 to 21 makes it clear that the sale was made
for the purpose of family necessity and therefore, both the
Courts below, after assessing the material on record, rightly
arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out a
case for interference. It is also to be noted that as per Ex.D13,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163
the date of birth of the plaintiff was 22.06.1986 and therefore,
the plaintiff attained the age of majority during 2004, since the
suit has not been filed within the limitation period of three
years after attaining the majority, both the Courts below have
rightly negatived the contention of the plaintiff and accordingly,
there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by
the Courts below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed at the
stage of admission itself as the appellant has not made out a
case for formulation of the substantial question of law required
under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, The appeal is
dismissed.
8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT.GSM
