Karnataka High Court
Smt Meenakshi vs Shri R Nanja Reddy on 17 March, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
RSA No. 2092 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2092 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT MEENAKSHI
W/O KAVERAPPA,
D/O E.GOPALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT HEELALIGE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VISWANATH SETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI R NANJA REDDY
S/O LATE DANDURAMAIAH @ RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
Digitally signed by 2. SHRI E.GOPALA REDDY
GEETHAKUMARI S/O LATE ERAPPA,
PARLATTAYA S AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE
R/AT HEELALIGE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
3. SMT RENUKA
W/O RAJAPPA,
D/O E.GOPALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4. SMT.VISHALAKSHI
D/O E.GOPALA REDDY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
RSA No. 2092 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 ARE
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
5. SHRI E.MUNI REDDY
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT HEELALIGE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
6. SHRI D.M.DEVARAJ
S/O MANCHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, ST.THOMAS SCHOOL ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3 AND R5 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 31.01.2024 NOTICE TO R4 & R6 ARE D/W)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DECREE DATED 29.8.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.175/2009
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE IN CHARGE JUDGE,
FAST TRACK COURT-I, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 16.9.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.254/2006 (OLD
NO.292/1999) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) JMFC.,
ANEKAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
RSA No. 2092 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 29.08.2011
passed by II Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru, in R.A.no.175/2009, this appeal is
filed.
2. Brief facts as stated are appellant was plaintiff in
O.S.no.254/2006 filed for relief of partition, separate
possession of her share in suit schedule properties (for short
'suit properties') and for declaration of sale deeds dated
13.02.1995 and 30.08.1995 as not binding on plaintiff and for
permanent injunction insofar as item no.4 and item no.2 of suit
properties respectively.
3. In plaint, it was stated Sri Erappa of Heelalige
village, ancestor of plaintiff/defendants had three sons through
his wife Eramma, namely Sri E Narayana Reddy, E Muni Reddy
(defendant no.4) and E Gopal Reddy (defendant no.1). It was
stated, Erappa inherited various properties from his ancestors.
After death of Erappa and Eramma, their three sons partitioned
properties orally as 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedules respectively and
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
also got their respective names entered to their respective
shares under IHC no.5/1994-95. It was stated, 'C' schedule
properties fell to share of E Gopala Reddy (hereinafter referred
to as 'suit properties'). He had three daughters, i.e. plaintiff,
defendants no.2 and 3. As such they had shares in them. But
under registered sale deed dated 13.02.1995, defendant no.4
purchased land bearing Sy.no.128 (item no.4 of suit properties)
belonging to plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3, and likewise,
defendant no.6 purchased land bearing Sy.no.141/4 and 141/6
(items no.6 and 7 of suit properties) on 30.08.1995,
respectively.
4. It was stated, plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3
constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and joint family
properties were not partitioned. She claimed, she was in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properties and
cultivating same along with defendants no.1 to 3 and entitled
for 1/4th equal share in them. It was stated, since plaintiff got
married after amendment to Hindu Succession (Karnataka
Amendment Act) 1990 and was assisting defendants no.1 to 3
in cultivation, they shared a portion of income with her.
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
5. It was stated defendant no.2 was married to
Rajappa. Thereafter defendant no.1 started to neglect plaintiff,
therefore she demanded her legal and legitimate share of 1/4th
share and sold some of the properties without knowledge to
plaintiff, defendants no.2 and 3. It was stated that later plaintiff
came to know that defendant no.1 illegally executed registered
sale deeds in favour of defendants no.5 and 6 in respect of land
in Sy.no.128/1, 141/1 and 141/6. Defendant no.4 is none other
than brother of defendant no.1 and same is not binding on
plaintiff and take away right of 1/4th share in joint family
properties. Hence, plaintiff filed suit.
6. On service, defendants no.1 to 4 and 6 did not
contest suit, they were placed exparte. But, defendants no.5
and 7 appeared and only defendant no.5 filed written statement
denying plaint averments. However, relationship with plaintiff
was admitted. It was defendant no.5 - purchaser of
Sy.no.128/1 i.e., item no.4 of suit schedule properties and 'C'
schedule property was fallen to share of defendant no.1.
Marriage of defendant no.2 was also admitted. Assertion about
plaintiff assisting defendants in cultivation and sharing of
income from lands with plaintiff was denied.
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
7. It was contended, plaintiff signed as witness in sale
deed by defendant no.4 in favour of defendant no.5 in respect
of item no.4 of suit property and also delivered possession. It
was stated names were also mutated in revenue records in
name of defendant no.5. Therefore, defendant no.5 was
bonafide purchaser. It was further stated except dwelling
house, defendant no.1 had sold all other properties and
purchased rental properties at Kithaganahalli, therefore,
plaintiff was not entitled for relief and sought dismissal of suit.
8. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are
the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and
defendant nos.1 to 3?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got right to
share in the suit properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated
1302.1995 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 5th
defendant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.128/1 to
an extent of 35½ guntas (item no.1) is not binding on the
plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deeds dated
30.08.1995 executed by 1st defendant and 4th defendant
in favour of 6th defendant in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.141/10 to an extent of 15 guntas (item no.2) are
not binding on her?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated
22.11.1999 executed by defendants no.1 to 3 in favour of
7th defendant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.122
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
measuring 1 acre 12½ guntas is not binding on the
plaintiff?
6. Whether the 5th defendant proves that he is the bonafide
purchaser of the item no.1 property?
7. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief/reliefs?
9. What order or decree?
9. In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as
PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. In rebuttal defendant
no.5 examined himself and two others as DWs.no.2 and 3 and
marked Exs.D.1 to 3.
10. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1
to 4, 7 and 8 in affirmative; issue no.5 as not surviving for
consideration; issue no.6 in negative and issue no.9 by
decreeing suit, holding plaintiff entitled for partition and
separate possession of her 1/4th share in suit properties,
declaring sale deeds executed by defendant no.1 in favour of
defendant no.5 and by defendants no.1 and 4 in favour of
defendant no.6, respectively as not binding on plaintiff, and
restraining defendants no.1, 5 and 6 etc. from alienating suit
properties and dispossessing plaintiff etc.
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
11. Aggrieved, defendant no.5 filed R.A.no.175/2009 on
various grounds and contentions insofar as item no.4, based on
which first appellate Court framed following:
:POINTS:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit
item no.4 i.e., Sy.no.128/1 measuring 35½ guntas?
2. Whether the registered Sale Deed dated 13.02.1995
executed in favour of defendant no.5 in respect of suit
item no.4 is binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether defendant no.5 is a bonafide purchaser of suit
item no.4?
4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree in respect of
suit item no.4 requires any interference i.e., whether the
findings on issue no.2, 3, 6 and 8 rendered by the trial
Court requires any interference?
5. What order?
12. On consideration, first appellate Court answered
points no.1 to 4 in affirmative and point no.5 by allowing
appeal, setting aside trial Court decree insofar as item no.4.
13. Sri Vishwanath Shetty V, learned counsel for
plaintiff submitted appeal was questioning finding of first
appellate Court excluding item no.4 from decree for partition
and it's failure to note that marriage of plaintiff was after Hindu
Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
14. It was submitted, in suit for partition filed by
plaintiff in respect of suit properties belonging to defendant
no.1 - E Gopala Reddy, relationship of plaintiff with defendants
no.1 to 3 as well as nature of suit properties as ancestral joint
family properties were admitted. Though defendant no.5
claimed to be bonafide purchaser, same was not substantiated.
It was submitted Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment)
Act, 1990 came into effect from 30.07.1994. When plaintiff's
marriage was not established to be prior to said amendment,
she had right for equal share in ancestral properties. Therefore,
sale deed executed on 13.02.1995 after said amendment
ignoring right/interest of plaintiff, same was illegal. Therefore,
substantial questions of law would arise for consideration and
prayed for admitting appeal.
15. On other hand, Sri Harish HV, learned counsel for
defendant no.5 submitted that appeal was devoid of merit. At
out set, it was submitted defendant no.1 was father of plaintiff
and defendants no.2 and 3 and after partition between children
of Erappa, was karta of joint family constituted with plaintiff
and defendants no.2 and 3. Further, in sale deed dated
13.02.1995 in respect of item no.4, there was specific recital
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
about alienation being for family necessity. Apart from above, in
her cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that from sale
consideration of item no.4 of suit property, defendant no.1 had
purchased properties with rental income, therefore purchased
properties were also joint family properties. She admitted that
they were not included in suit schedule. She also admitted said
properties were yielding rental income. Therefore, plaintiff
challenge of sale deed as not for legal necessity was baseless.
16. Insofar as contention based on State Amendment to
Hindu Succession Act, it was submitted, same was eclipsed by
later central amendment by Act no.39 of 2005. It was further
contended, plaintiff had joined defendants no.1 to 3 in
execution of sale deed dated 30.08.1995, by defendant no.4 in
respect of item no.4, in favour of defendant no.5. It was
therefore submitted, in view of proviso to Section 6 (1) any
disposition or alienation taken place before 20.12.2004 was
saved. On said grounds sought for dismissal.
17. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and decree.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
18. This appeal is by plaintiff challenging modification of
decree for partition granted by trial Court insofar as item no.4
of suit properties.
19. There is no dispute about nature of suit properties
or about plaintiff forming joint family with defendants no.1 to 3.
While passing judgment and decree, trial Court noted defence
set up by defendant no.5 was about plaintiff joining defendants
no.1 to 3 in selling item no.4 of suit properties, that defendant
no.5 was bonafide purchaser for value in possession and his
name entered in revenue records and since all suit properties
were sold, there were no properties remaining nullifying
plaintiff's claim for partition.
20. While giving its finding on issues no.3, 4 and 6, trial
Court observed recitals in Es.P.10 and 12 - sale deeds referred
to properties therein as ancestral joint family properties of
defendant no.1 (seller). It observed Exs.P.3 to P.8 referred to
oral partition between children of Erappa and suit properties
falling to share of defendant no.1.
21. It also referred to deposition of DW.1 that plaintiff
along with her sister and mother were witnesses to Ex.D.1 -
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
sale deed dated 13.02.1995. But, on perusal of Ex.D.1, it noted
plaintiff was not a signatory. On the said finding, it held sale
deeds - Exs.P.10 to 12 as not binding on plaintiff and defendant
no.5 was not bonafide purchaser. On said finding it granted
decree for partition.
22. In appeal, first appellate Court noted, PW1 admitted
in cross-examination that she as well as her sisters were
educated, that defendant no.1 had sold all suit properties and
from said amount, purchased sites at Hebbagodi and
Kithaganahalli and from houses constructed therein, defendant
no.1 was continuous rental income. It also noted her admission
that said properties were not included in suit plaint. It observed
plaintiff also admitted that she does not have any right over
item no.4 of suit properties purchased by defendant no.5.
23. First appellate Court thereafter referred to
deposition of DW.1 claiming to be bonafide purchaser and DWs
2 and 3 stating that with money received from sale of
properties, defendant no.1 had purchased sites, constructed
houses and was getting income. Apart from above, it referred
to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, had overriding
effect over State amendment and contained bar against
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
challenging any disposition or alienation prior to 20th of
December, 2004.
24. Based on said findings, it allowed appeal and
modified trial Court decree only insofar as item no.4 of suit
properties.
25. Thus, it is seen, first appellate Court has on re-
appreciation of entire evidence and after taking note of defence
about defendant no.5 being bonafide purchaser corroborated by
specific recital in impugned sale deed as well as admission that
from sale of joint family property, defendant no.1 as karta of
joint family, purchased sites, put up construction and was
deriving rental income therefrom, concluded that sale in favour
of defendant no.5 was not illegal and that defendant no.5 was
bonafide purchaser. Said finding is by referring to material on
record and cannot be held to be perverse.
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay A. Mittal v.
Kulwant Rai, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 520, has held karta
can alienate suit property subject to restriction namely, for legal
necessity and for protection of estate. But, instant case, plea of
sale being without legal necessity was neither pleaded nor
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10857
evidence led to substantiate same, thus said contention doest
not arise for consideration.
27. In any case, in view of specific bar in proviso to
Section 6(1) of Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005,
alienation dated 13.02.1995 in favour of defendant no.5 cannot
be questioned.
28. Wherefore, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
psg*
