Karnataka High Court
Duddupuri Satyanarayana S/O Venkanna vs Peddappa S/O Hosageppa on 24 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
RSA No. 200345 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200345 OF 2015
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
DUDDUPUDI SATYANARAYANA
S/O VENKANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VENKATESHWARA CAMP,
GANDHINAGAR POST,
SINDHANUR, TQ.SINDHANUR,
DIST.RAICHUR - 584 128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA PEDDAPPA DIED BY HIS LRS
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1(A) SHARANAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O BASPUR HANUMANTHU,
AGE ABOUT:45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
1(B) YAMANOORAPPA D/O ERAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
1(C) BASAMMA W/O ERAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 65 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
RSA No. 200345 of 2015
1(D) HOSAGERAPPA
S/O PEDDAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
1(E) LAXMAMMA
W/O ANNAPPA,
AGE ABOUT:66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
1(F) HOSAGERAPPA
S/O ANAPPA,
AGE ABOUT:43 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
1(G) NINGAPPA
S/O ANNAPPA,
AGE ABOUT:40 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O. PWD CAMP, DUDDUPUDI SCHOOL,
VALABELLARY ROAD, VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
SINDHANUR, TQ:SINDHANUR,
DIST:RAICHUR
1(H) G. LAXMI W/O NAGAREDDY
D/O PEDDAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SIRWAR VILLAGE TQ:MANVI,
DIST:RAICHUR.
2. ERAPPA S/O AMARAPPA @ ANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR DUDDUPURI SCHOOL,
OLABELLARI ROAD, TQ.SINDHANUR,
DIST.RAICHUR - 584 128.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
RSA No. 200345 of 2015
3. RAVIKUMAR
S/O MARATAPPA
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MALLATA VILLAGE
TQ: MANVI
DIST: RAICHUR
4. RAJA HUSSAIN
S/O SHAMEED SAB
AGE ABOUT: 42 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WARD NO:30, RAICHUR ROAD,
GUNDAMMA CAMP, SINDHANUR
TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR - 58412.
AS PER VIDE ORDER DATED:30.01.2025
...RESPONDENTS
(BY R1 (A TO D) ARE SERVED;
R1 (E TO G), R2 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
DATED 29.03.2021;
SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(H);
SRI. G.G. CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. SANGANABASAVA. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.91/2011
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAICHUR,
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.07.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.486/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT LINGASUGUR SITTING AT
SINDHANUR AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
RSA No. 200345 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
In this regular second appeal defendant No.2 has
challenged the impugned judgment and decree of the
first appellate Court, which reverse the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit
filed by the plaintiff declaring him as the absolute owner
of suit schedule property and that the sale by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void and not
binding on the plaintiff and other consequential relief.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff is the paternal grand father of
defendant No.1. He filed the suit against defendant
No.1 and challenge the sale executed by him in favour
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
of defendant No.2 contending that he is the absolute
owner in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
property. A partition has taken place between him and
his three sons about 20 years back. The father of
defendant No.1 deserted his family including defendant
No.1 and living with one Saramma. With a fond hope
that defendant No.1 would take care of his family and
also with love and affection for him, plaintiff purchased
suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.1
when he was a minor. Plaintiff is the real owner and he
is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property, whereas defendant No.1 is the ostensible
owner.
3.1 Taking advantage of the sale deed standing
in his name defendant No.1 wanted to sell the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. When
plaintiff refused to sign the sale deed, defendant No.1
and his mother have become hostile towards the plaintiff
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
and neglected him. Defendant No.1 has executed the
sale deed dated 25.6.2003 in favour of defendant No.2.
In the panchayat dated 09.07.2005 defendant No.1 has
denied the title of the plaintiff which forced him to file
the suit.
4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement
admitting the relationship and the fact that the partition
has taken place between plaintiff and his sons and the
father of defendant No.1 has deserted him and his
family and staying with one Saramma. However, he has
denied that suit schedule property purchased by plaintiff
in the name of defendant No.1. He has contended that
the mother of defendant No.1 has purchased suit
schedule property in the name of defendant No.1, but in
the sale deed plaintiff is shown as his guardian. He has
denied that he is addicted to bad habits and tried to
alienate suit schedule property to meet the expenses of
his bad habits. As a matter of fact, defendant No.1 has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
sold 1 acre out of suit schedule property to defendant
No.2 through registered sale deed dated 20.06.2005 for
his family necessity. There is no cause of action and
sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.2 who is subsequently
impleaded has filed written statement stating that the
contents of para 2 of the plaint are beyond his
knowledge. The claim of the plaintiff that he has
purchased suit schedule property in the name of
defendant No.1 is barred by Prohibition of Benami
Property Transitions Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and
thereby his title is ousted. Consequently, defendant
No.1 is the absolute owner. Defendant No.2 has
claimed that he purchased suit property after satisfying
with the title of defendant No.1 and verifying relevant
records. It was not resisted by the plaintiff. In fact he
has participated in the proceedings of sale transaction
and sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
6. Based on the pleadings, trail Court framed
necessary issues.
7. At the trial, plaintiff gave evidence as PW1,
three witnesses as PW2 to 4 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 8.
8. On the other hand, defendant No.1
examined himself as DW1, his mother as DW2.
Defendant No.2 is examined as DW3. No documents are
marked on behalf of defendants.
9. The trial Court dismissed the suit.
10. It was challenged by plaintiff in
R.A.No.91/2011. The first appellate Court allowed the
appeal and decreed the suit by reversing the judgment
and decree of the trial Court.
11. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed
RSA No.7248/2013 before this Court. However, vide
order dated 04.12.2013 it was dismissed for default of
not complying the office objections.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
12. After coming to know about the dismissal of
the second appeal filed by the defendant No.1,
defendant No.2 filed the present appeal contending that
the impugned judgment and decree of first appellate
Court is against law, facts and probability of the case. It
has committed serious error of law in not considering
question of limitation in its right perspective. Having
regard to the fact that partition has taken place about
25 years back the allegations of the plaintiff that suit
schedule property purchased nominally in the name of
defendant No.1 is against the facts borne out from the
records. The first appellate Court has committed a
serious error in accepting the plea of Benami
transaction. Defendant No.2 has proved that he is a
bonafide purchaser for value without notice and
therefore sale by defendant No.1 in his favour is
required to be upheld.
13. Vide order dated 19.11.2024, the appeal is
admitted on the following substantial question of law.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
" Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the matter, the First Appellate Court is
justified in reversing the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court on the
premise that defendant No.1 being the
grandson of the appellant held the
property in a fiduciary capacity for the
benefit of the appellant?"
14. Heard elaborate arguments on both sides
and perused the records.
15. The relationship between plaintiff and
defendant No.1 and the fact that partition has taken
place about 20 years prior to the filing of the suit and
the father of defendant No.1 deserted his family
including defendant No.1 and was saying with one
Saramma is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that
suit schedule property was purchased through registered
sale deed dated 20.6.2005, in the name of defendant
No.1 during his minority. While plaintiff claim that he
nominally purchased the suit schedule property in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
name of defendant No.1, as his father has deserted his
family, defendant No.1 has contended that his mother
paid the sale consideration out of the income derived
from the properties fallen to their share. The defendant
No.1 has also contended that in the light of provisions of
the Act, the claim of the plaintiff is not sustainable.
16. The trial Court negatived all the contentions
of the plaintiff and also held that the suit is barred by
limitation and dismissed the same.
17. Even though the defendant No.1 raised the
issue of plaintiff debarred from seeking relief in the light
of provisions of the Act, the trial Court failed to frame
any issue on that aspect.
18. However, the first appellate Court not only
reversed the findings of the trial Court and also raise
the issue regarding prohibition under the Act, it held
that the transaction in question comes under the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
exception and as such the same would not come in the
way of plaintiff claiming the relief and decreed the suit.
19. In the light of the same, substantial question
of law is raised as to whether the first appellate Court is
justified in holding that defendant No.1 being the grand
son of plaintiff held the property in a fiduciary capacity
for the benefit of plaintiff. While sub section 1 of section
3 of the Act, prohibits any person from entering into any
Benami transaction, sub section 2 and 3 prescribes
punishment for entering into Benami transaction.
20. Section 4 prohibits right to recover property
held Benami. Before the 2016 amendment, it reads as
follows:
"4. Prohibition of the right to recover property
held benami:- (1) No suit, claim or action to
enforce any right in respect of any property
held benami against the person in whose name
the property is held or against any other
person shall lie by or on behalf of a person
claiming to be the real owner of such property.
(2) No defence based on any right in respect
of any property held benami, whether against
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
the person in whose name the property is held
or against any other person, shall be allowed in
any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a
person claiming to be the real owner of such
property.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply,-
(a) where the person in whose name the
property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu
undivided family and the property is held for
the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or
(b) whether the person in whose name the
property is held as a trustee or other person
standing in a fiduciary capacity and the
property is held for the benefit of another
person for whom he is a trustee or towards
whom he stands in such capacity".
21. Thus, as per section 4(1) no suit, claim or
action to enforce any right in respect of any property
held Benami against the person in whose name the
property is held or against any other person shall lie by
or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of
such property. No such suit, claim or action could be
entertained by any Court. Similarly as per section 4(2)
no defence based on any right in respect of any property
held Benami, whether against the person in whose name
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
the property is held or against any other person shall be
allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a
person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
22. However, by sub section 3, before the 2016
amendment, an exception was carved out wherein (a)
person in whose name the property is held is a
coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the
properties held for the benefit of the coparcener in the
family or (b) where the person in whose name the
property is held as a trustee or other person standing in
a fiduciary capacity and the property held for the benefit
of other person for whom he is a trustee or towards
whom he stands in such capacity.
23. Admittedly a partition has taken place in the
family of plaintiff and his three sons. Consequently,
section 3(a) is not applicable. Similarly the concept of
trust and trustee is also not applicable.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
24. The first appellate Court held that the
relationship between plaintiff and defendant No.1 is
fiduciary in nature and therefore the exception is
applicable and the plaintiff is entitled for decree and
reverse the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
However, the first appellate Court has erred in
appreciating the concept of fiduciary relationship.
25. Admittedly, according to the plaintiff himself
after the partition, father of defendant deserted his
family and children and went away with one Saramma.
He failed to take care of the welfare of his wife and
children. Therefore, as a paternal grandfather plaintiff
took the responsibility of his family. In token of his love
and affection towards defendant No.1 and believing that
during his old age defendant No.1 would take care of
him, plaintiff purchased suit schedule property in the
name of defendant No.1 who was a minor and got the
sale deed executed. Having regard to the fact that
defendant No.1 was the minor when the sale deed was
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
registered in his name and out of love and affection
towards defendant No.1 plaintiff got executed the sale
deed in his name, it is plaintiff who is standing in
fiduciary capacity towards defendant No.1.
26. When the plaintiff has purchased the suit
schedule property for the benefit of defendant No.1 and
standing in the nature of fiduciary relationship with
defendant No.1, question of plaintiff claiming back the
property would not arise. On plaintiff being in a
fiduciary relationship with defendant No.1 he is
precluded from claiming back the property. The ground
on which the first appellate Court granted relief in
favour of plaintiff is contrary to the concept of fiduciary
relationship between him and defendant No.1. Plaintiff
being in a position of dominance, authority, trust and
good faith and having it given benefit to defendant No.1
he is precluded from claiming back the property and not
vice- versa. The first appellate Court has confused itself
about the fiduciary relationship between the parties.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
27. Out of suit schedule property, defendant
No.1 has sold 1 acre in favour of defendant No.2. Even
though defendant No.1 filed RSA No.7248/2013 against
plaintiff and defendant No.2 he has failed to prosecute
the same. On 04.12.2013 the said appeal came to be
dismissed for non compliance of office objections. He
has not chosen to get it restored. After realizing that
defendant No.1 has failed to prosecute the said appeal,
defendant No.2 has filed the present appeal. The
conduct of defendant No.1 indicate and support the
allegations made by defendant No.2 that now he is
colluding with plaintiff.
28. Thus from the above discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the first appellate Court is
not justified in reversing the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court on the premise that defendant
No.1 being the grandson of plaintiff held the property in
a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of plaintiff and
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1357
accordingly substantial question of law is answered in
the negative.
29. In the result, the appeal filed by defendant
No.2 succeeds and accordingly the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by appellant /defendant
No.2 is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order dated
27.02.2013 passed by the first appellate
Court in R.A.91/2011 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Raichur, is set
aside.
iii) Suit is dismissed as barred under section
4 of Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988.
Send back the trial Court records along with the
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
SMP
