Karnataka High Court
Narasi Bai vs B S Basavaiah on 13 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
RSA No. 2028 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2028 OF 2011 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. NARASI BAI
D/O NARASINGH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O NARASIPURA.
2. SEETHA BAI (SINCE DEAD BY LRS)
2(a) JAYALAKSHMIBAI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O JAYARAMSINGH
2/309, SATHYANAGAR
POST AT: THADANGAM TALUKA
HALLAMPALLI,. BISTRICT;
Digitally
signed by C DHARMAPURI TAMILNADU-636 705.
HONNUR SAB
Location: 2(b) YASHODABAI
HIGH COURT W/O SHIVASINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OF KURUBARAHALLI, SAMAPAGE HOSAHALLI,
KARNATAKA TURAVEKERE TALUKA, TUMAKURU-572 123.
2(c) ANNAPURNA
W/O CHANDRAKUMARSINGH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO. 96/3, 6TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN ROAD, KASTÜRIBANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 026
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
RSA No. 2028 of 2011
HC-KAR
2(d) ARJUNSINGH
S/O SEETHABAI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, IIND YEAR,
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020.
2(e) DURGABAI D/O SEETHABAI
NO. 7/8, IIND CROSS,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.
3. RAMABAI (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS)
3(a) LAXMIBAI
W/O MAHINDRASINGH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION,
5TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-572 101.
3(b) SHANKARAIAH
S/O RAMBAI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO. 64,
CHUNCHAGATTA, BENGALURU-560 052.
4 LAKSHMI BAI
D/O LATE NARASINGH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A BYLALKERE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUKA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 072.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH D HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
RSA No. 2028 of 2011
HC-KAR
AND:
1. B S BASAVAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(a). HONNASWAMIAH
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO.187, 7TH CROSS
BAPUJI EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU -560 060
1(b). SRI SIDDAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(b) (a) MAHADEVAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KARUR ROAD, MAGADI ROAD
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT - 562 120.
1(b)(b) BHARATHI
W/O RAJKUMAR
KARAU ROAD, MAGAGI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 120.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1(a)(b))
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.22/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACT COURT AT RAMANAGARA DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 11/4/2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.122/2003 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) RAMANAGARA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
RSA No. 2028 of 2011
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is arising from the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.122/2003 on the file of the Additional
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Ramanagar and the judgment and
decree in R.A.No.22/2007 on the file of the Presiding Officer,
Fast Tract Court at Ramanagar.
2. The suit filed by four daughters of Bhavani
Bayamma and Narasingh seeking partition, is dismissed. The
plaintiffs' appeal is also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the
said judgment and decree, plaintiffs are before this Court.
3. The admitted genealogy would mention that one
Narasingh was the propositus and his wife was Bhavani
Bayamma. They had five children. However, the suit is filed
by four daughters of Bhavani Bayamma. The daughter by
name Savitri Bai who is the fourth daughter of Bhavana
Bayamma is not made party to the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
HC-KAR
4. The suit is filed on the premise that the property
originally belonged to Narasingh and his brothers and in the
family partition, the suit properties are allotted to the share
of Narasingh and on demise of Narasingh, the properties
devolved on plaintiffs and plaintiffs' mother-Bhavani
Bayamma.
5. The plaintiffs has sought 1/5th share in the suit
properties on the premise that there is no partition in the
family in respect of the suit properties. The defendant who is
the purchaser of the suit property from plaintiffs' mother
contested the suit contending that the suit property sold on
26.09.1963 under a registered sale deed. It is further
contended that Narasingh was in arrears of loan which he
had borrowed for the benefit of family and the loan was not
repaid during his lifetime and to repay the said loan, the
property was sold by Narasingh's wife Bhavani Bayamma.
The defendant took the contention that plaintiffs were aware
of the sale deed. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the
said suit on the ground of limitation as well.
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
HC-KAR
6. Trial Court accepted defendant's contention and
dismissed the suit on the premise that suit is time barred.
7. The First Appellate Court also concurrent that the
suit is time barred and dismissed the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that both Courts have erred in holding that the suit is time
barred. It is further contended that plaintiffs' mother had no
right to alienate the properties, as such, the Court ought to
have granted decree holding that the sale deed does not
bind the interest of the plaintiffs.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-
purchaser would contend that plaintiffs cannot have any right
over the property and mother of the plaintiffs has sold the
property for family necessity as her husband Narasing could
not repay the loan amount which he had raised for the
benefit of the family during his lifetime. After demise of
Narasingh, the mother of the plaintiffs has sold the property
for family necessity and the said sale deed was within the
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
HC-KAR
knowledge of the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff Nos.3
and 4 were not born when property was sold.
10. This Court has considered that contentions raised
by Bar and perused the records.
11. When the suit was filed, age of the plaintiff No.3
is shown as 45 years and age of the plaintiff No.4 was shown
as 36 years. The suit is filed in the year 2003. The sale deed
is of the year 1963. Thus, it is apparent that when the suit
was filed, plaintiff No.4 was not born. Thus, plaintiff No.4 had
no right over the property as the property was sold before
the birth of plaintiff No.4.
12. It is also noticed that pursuant to the sale deed
dated 26.09.1963, property records were changed and name
of the defendant was entered in the property records. It is
further pertinent to note that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 were born
when the property was sold and they have not led the
evidence. It is only plaintiff No.4 was not born when sale
took place in the year 1963, who has led evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
HC-KAR
13. This being the proposition, this Court is of the view
that the evidence of plaintiff No.4 who is PW.1 cannot be
taken as a valid evidence to substantiate the contention of
plaintiff Nos.1 to 3.
14. It is also noticed that the plaintiffs have not
produced any records to establish their contention that they
are in possession of the suit property. On the other hand, the
records produced by the defendants would clearly
demonstrate that the defendant was in possession of the
property ever since the property was sold. This would
clearly establish that the plaintiffs were aware that defendant
is in possession of the property pursuant to the sale deed.
This being the position, both the Courts have rightly held
that suit of the plaintiffs is time barred and have dismissed
the suit.
15. After going through the reasons assigned by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, this Court does not
find any reason to interfere with the said reasoning when
NC: 2025:KHC:20326
HC-KAR
exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. No
substantial question of law would arise.
16. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
