Karnataka High Court
Smt Shivamma @ Suvarnamma vs Sri Mahadevappa @ Patela on 11 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
RSA No. 553 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVAMMA @ SUVARNAMMA
W/O LATE MADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT BEDARPURA VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. KAVYA ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. M. SIVAPPA ASSOCIATES AND ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI MAHADEVAPPA @ PATELA
S/O LATE NAGAVALLI SUBBAPPA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
COURT OF GANGAVADI STREET,
KARNATAKA MARIYALA VILLAGE
CHAMRAJANAGAR TALUK-571313.
2. SMT. RATNAMMA
D/O LATE NAGAVALLI SUBBAPPA,
W/O SRI. BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NEAR MARIKENCHAPPANA HOUSE,
MELAJIPURA VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571313.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
RSA No. 553 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI. MAHESHA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT MURUGHARAJENDRA NEW EXTENTION,
MARIYALA VILLAGE
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571313.
4. SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE MASANEGOEDA,
W/O GURUMALLEGOEDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
KOODIMOLE BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE AND POST
CHANDAKVADI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571313.
5. SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA
S/O LATE MASANEGOEDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
MARIYALADAHUNDI VILLAGE,
MARIYALA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571313.
6. SRI RAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE MASANEGOEDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
MARIYALADAHUNDI VILLAGE,
MARIYALA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571313.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.207/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHAMRAJANAGAR.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
RSA No. 553 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is
that plaintiff and the defendants are sisters i.e. daughters of
Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa and
Deveeramma. The suit schedule properties originally belongs to
Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa i.e., the father of
the plaintiff and defendants and during the lifetime of
Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, the suit schedule properties
were allotted to the share of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and
thereafter, he was in possession. The plaintiff and the
defendants being his legal heirs are in joint possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties along with Smt.
Deveeramma, the mother of the parties to the suit. Sri
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
Channanjappa @ Puttappa being the father, he was the
manager of the family, the plaintiff and defendants are the
members of the joint family.
3. The plaintiff further contend that Sri Channanjappa
@ Puttappa died on 11.08.1963 and after his demise, his wife
Smt. Deveeramma was looking after the management on the
support of Sri Javanappa, the elder brother of her husband. The
marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was celebrated out
of the income arising from the suit schedule properties, even
Smt. Deveeramma also died on 07.02.2005 leaving behind the
plaintiff and the defendant as the LRs of Sri Channanjappa @
Puttappa and Smt. Deveeramma. It is also the contention that
suit schedule properties being in joint possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants. As the plaintiff was
married to Mahadevappa of Bedarapura Village and she is living
in Bedarapura with the assistance of Subbappa, the defendant's
husband, the suit schedule properties are managed by the
defendant with the assistance of her husband, the crops that
over earned from the suit schedule properties was normally
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
given to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has regularly given her
share, she was in good terms with the defendant.
4. It is also the contention that defendant's husband
Sri Subbappa also passed away about 1½ years ago, after his
demise, the agricultural operation is not properly maintained by
the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has spoken with the
defendant to divide her share and deliver her share of the
properties for her separate possession. The defendant turned a
deaf ear and does not show her readiness to divide the suit
schedule properties and to the surprise of plaintiff, the late
husband of the defendant with a malafide intention to knock off
the properties to himself, concocted the RTC getting entry of
his name in the relevant column of RTC behind the back of the
plaintiff. It is also the contention that the defendant's husband,
a poor man from Nagavalli Village and inducted to the family of
Channanjappa @ Puttappa as Channanjappa @ Puttappa was
unsoundness of mind, being inducted to the family who was
also members of the joint family and he was managing the
affairs of the alleged sale deeds are sham, colourable and not
intended to be acted upon and the same if fraudulent and thus
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
they cannot take away the characteristics of jointness. However
the joint family continued under the management of the
defendant's husband. It is also the contention that the plaintiff
has though put her demands orally for partition and there is no
response from the defendant and plaintiff has got issued a legal
notice and defendant did not come forward and hence, filed a
suit without any other alternative.
5. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to
3 appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit
item Nos.1 to 3 properties originally belongs to one
Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa. On 23.04.1958,
he sold item Nos.1 to 3 properties to the husband of
defendant's Sri Subbappa for sale consideration of Rs.600/-
through registered sale deed. The suit item No.4 property i.e.,
vacant site acquired by Sri Subbappa through Government
grant. Hence, he is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of suit item Nos.1 to 4 property. The suit schedule
properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant's
husband Sri Subbappa. The plaintiff has no manner of right or
relationship over the suit schedule properties and hence, not
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
entitled for any relief. It is also contented that after the
purchase of suit schedule properties, Sri Subbappa changed
khatha into his name and paying taxes to the revenue
authorities. After the demise of Sri Subbappa, the defendant
and his children are his legal representatives in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is also contented
that at the time of sale of suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties, the
plaintiff and defendants were residing at their matrimonial
home. After the sale of suit item Nos.1 to 3 property, Sri
Channanjappa @ Puttappa gave the remaining properties in
favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff sold the same to third
parties. The plaintiff is having full knowledge about the said
facts and filed the false case. It is contended that the plaintiff
has not approached the Court with clean hands and hence not
entitled for any relief.
6. The defendant No.1(a) filed the written statement
and contended that Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa has not died
on 25.01.1998 as contended by the plaintiff in paragraph No.4
of his plaint, instead he contended that Sri Channanjappa @
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
Puttappa has died in the year 1963. He further contended that
the plaintiff illegally created the documents.
7. The defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c) also filed their
written statement contending that originally property belongs
to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o.Siddappa. On
23.04.1958, Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa sold suit item Nos.1
to 3 properties to the defendant's husband Sri Subbappa for
sale consideration and similar defence was taken in the written
statement that suit schedule properties are the self-acquired
properties of defendant's husband.
8. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the issues and burden is shifted on the
plaintiff to prove that herself and defendants constitute Joint
Hindu family and the suit schedule properties are joint family
properties of the plaintiff and defendants and also in view of
the defence of the defendants, framed an issue that whether
the defendants prove that suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3 are
purchased by her husband Puttappa through registered sale
deed dated 23.04.1958 from Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and
also whether the defendant prove that her husband purchased
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
suit schedule item No.4 from Government through registered
sale deed dated 23.04.1958 and suit is barred by limitation.
The Trial Court also framed additional issues in view of
additional written statement filed by defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c)
whether defendant Nos.2(a) to (c) prove that the suit schedule
item No.1 of property is purchased by Masanagowda, S/o.
Javaregowda from Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa under the
registered sale deed dated 11.11.1998 to the extent of 2¼
guntas and whether defendant Nos.2(a) to (c) prove that
nature of the schedule item No.1 property to the extent of 2¼
guntas is changed as pleaded in paragraph No.8(d) of written
statement.
9. The parties were allowed to lead evidence and the
plaintiff examined one witness GPA holder as P.W.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P56. The plaintiff also examined two
witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The defendant No.1(a)
examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D46. The
defendants also examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3.
Defendant No.2 is impleaded in the suit. Subsequently, during
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
the trial, defendant No.2 died and his LRs were brought on
record.
10. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record comes to the
conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties
and nothing is placed on record to prove the same. Apart from
that, when the property belongs to Sri Channanjappa @
Puttappa, he had sold the properties in the year 1958 itself in
favour of husband of defendant No.1 and answered issue Nos.1
and 2 as 'negative' and answered issue Nos.3 to 5 as
'affirmative' and comes to the conclusion that sale was made in
the year 1958 and as on the date of sale, the plaintiff was aged
about 30 years and ought to have challenged the sale within 3
years and the same has not been done and answered issue
No.6 as 'affirmative' in coming to the conclusion that suit itself
is barred by limitation and also answered issue Nos.7 to 9 as
'negative' and dismissed the suit.
11. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an
appeal is filed in R.A.No.24/2020. The First Appellate Court also
having considered the grounds which have been urged in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial Court is
justified in holding that plaintiff/appellant has failed to prove
that herself and defendant No.1 continued under Joint Hindu
family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties of herself and defendant No.1, whether the trial
Judge is justified in coming to the conclusion that suit schedule
properties are self-acquired properties of husband of defendant
No.1, namely Subbappa, whether the suit is barred by
limitation and whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as
sought in the plaint.
12. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both
oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered
point Nos.1 to 4 as 'affirmative' in coming to the conclusion
that Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit, since the sale
was made in the year 1958 itself and suit was filed in 2008
after a long gap of 50 years and also comes to the conclusion
that very suit itself is barred by limitation. The First Appellate
Court also discussed Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in
paragraph No.17 and also the recent judgment of Apex Court in
Vineetha Sharm's case in paragraph No.18 and taken note of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
the fact that sale was made in the year 1958 by father of the
plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.600/- and issue of
limitation was also discussed in paragraph No.19. Having
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence comes to the
conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error. Being
aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is
filed before this Court.
13. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellant in this appeal is that both the Courts are not
justified in holding that item No.4 is granted in favour of
husband of defendant No.1, when the same is allotted to the
paternal uncle of plaintiff and defendants Sri Javanappa which
fell to the share of plaintiff's father in the partition that took
place between the brothers. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in holding that item Nos.1 to 3 were sold to husband of
defendant No.1 by father of the plaintiff in the year 1958 and
the very approach of both the Courts that suit is barred by
limitation is also erroneous. The counsel also vehemently
contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not allotting
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
any share to the plaintiff in suit item No.1 when only portion of
it is sold to defendant No.2 and the remaining is still in
possession of LRs of defendant and when defendant's vendor
was not having any valid title. Hence, this Court has to admit
the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also the reasoning of the Trial Court, it is the very specific
pleading of the plaintiff while seeking the relief that property
belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and plaintiff is the
daughter of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and defendant Nos.1
and 2 are the sister of the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that if any
sale deed is made by the father, the same is created behind the
back of plaintiff and even change of khatha and documents will
not create any right in favour of husband of defendant No.1
and specific defence was taken by the defendant that property
was purchased by her husband from Sri Channanjappa @
Puttappa in the year 1958 itself i.e., both item Nos.1 to 3 and
item No.4 and also there was a sale deed in respect of all the
items of the suit schedule properties and defence was also
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
taken that suit is barred by limitation, since sale deed was of
the year 1958.
15. The Trial Court having considered the issue of
limitation, in paragraph No.32 considered issue No.6 and comes
to the conclusion that when the father and mother during the
year 1958 and 1968 have sold the property, ought to have
challenged the same within 3 years after she attaining majority
and moreover, the sale deeds alleged to be executed by her
father is 30 years old as on the date of filing of the suit as per
Article 110 of Limitation Act. By a person excluded from the
joint family property to enforce a right to share the period of
limitation is 12 years i.e., when the exclusion becomes known
to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession
over the suit schedule property along with defendant No.1.
Hence, comes to the conclusion that limitation starts by
exclusion and the fact that there are two sale deeds of the year
1958 and 1968 is not in dispute. The counsel appearing for the
appellant would vehemently contend that plaintiff was getting
the share in the property. Hence, there was no dispute and
only after the death of her sister's husband, when they were
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
reluctant to give share, then came to know about the same.
When the sale was made in the year 1958, suit was filed in the
year 2008 after a long gap of 50 years. Apart from that when
the father himself had sold the property in the year 1958 and
though it is contented that the same is a sham document and
the fact that sale was made in the year 1958 through a
registered sale deed and property was sold in favour of her
sister's husband and in order to prove the factum that share
was given to the plaintiff also, nothing is placed on record. All
these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and comes
to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and plaintiff is
also not entitled for any relief by answering issue Nos.1 and 2
as 'negative' and answered issue Nos.3 and 4 accepting the
contention of defendant No.1 that there was sale deed in favour
of the defendant.
16. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the
decision of the Apex Court in Vineetha Sharma's case that
rights can be claimed by the daughters born earlier with effect
from 09.09.2005 as provided in Section 6(1) of Hindu
Succession Act as to the disposition, alienation, partition or
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
testamentary disposition which has taken place before
2012.2004. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact
that alienation has taken place on 23.04.1958 and the claim of
the daughter i.e. plaintiff is barred by proviso under Section
6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Hindu
Succession (Amended) Act No.39 of 2005 w.e.f., 09.09.2005.
Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation.
Furthermore, at the time of execution of alleged sale deed
dated 23.04.1958, if plaintiff was minor and not attained
majority, she has not filed any suit within a period of 3 years
and also taken note of limitation in paragraph No.19 that the
same is a question of fact and law and also plaintiff was
excluded from the property, though contend that her sister's
husband was cultivating the property. But the fact is that
plaintiff was not in joint possession is also taken note of by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When such being the
case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court and both question of fact and question
of law is considered by both the Courts and the appellant has
not made out any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45954
HC-KAR
admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of
law.
17. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
