Karnataka High Court
Smt.M.Suganthy vs Sri. J. Raju on 17 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
RSA No. 187 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.187 OF 2025 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M. SUGANTHY,
W/O. SRI. C. VENKATESHAPPA,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.205,
4TH CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
SRI. C. VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O. LATE RAMANNA,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.205,
4TH CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU AND
COURT OF SMT. B.V.GIRIJA, ADVOCATES)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. J. RAJU,
S/O JAYASEELAN,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.86,
NEW MODEL HOUSE,
COROMANDEL, KGF - 563 118.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C. PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
RSA No. 187 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.188/23 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR
(SITTING AT KGF), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2023
PASSED IN O.S.NO.156/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF.
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. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, it is
contended that her grandmother/Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma
was the owner of the suit property having acquired the same
under the sale deed in the year 1996 from Asadi Muniga. The
said Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma was in possession and
cultivation of the suit schedule property and paying the tax and
all the records standing in her name. She died leaving behind
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
HC-KAR
son Meshak and the said Meshak and his wife Govindamma also
died leaving behind three children i.e., Smt. Annamery, Smt.
Suganthy (herself) and Sri M.Prakash. The said Annamery and
Prakash died leaving behind only herself to succeed the estate
of Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma. She is having 1/3rd share in
suit property. But, her brother Prakash and mother
Smt.Govindamma created the document and illegally sold the
suit property in favour of the defendant under a sale deed
dated 03.06.2013. The said sale deed is not valid in law and
violates Section 23 of Registration Act for non-presentation of
document within four months from the date of its execution and
based on the said illegal sale deed, got changed the khatha in
the name of the defendant. The said sale deed and mutation
are illegal and obtained the document in order to deny the right
of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared and filed the written statement. It is contended that
Smt.Salamma was absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of
Smt.Salamma, the suit property was devolved to her son
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
HC-KAR
Meshak. After the death of Meshak, the suit property was
devolved to Smt.Govindamma and his only son Prakash. During
the lifetime of Smt.Govindamma and Prakash, they had offered
to sell the suit property and after verification only, the
defendant agreed to purchase the suit property and purchased
the same on 03.06.2013 and from that date he is in possession
of the suit schedule property and revenue documents also
stands in his name and hence, the plaintiff is not having any
right over the suit schedule property.
5. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of both
the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record, dismissed the suit on the ground that
P.W.1 has not produced any document to show that she is the
granddaughter and daughter of Smt.Salamma @ Gnanamma,
Meshak and Smt.Govindamma. In the cross-examination of
P.W.1, she categorically admits that she has not produced any
document to show the relationship with Smt.Salamma @
Gnanamma, Meshak and Smt.Govindamma as rightly
contended by the defendant. The defendant has purchased the
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
HC-KAR
property from Smt.Govindamma and Prakash in terms of
Ex.P.20 and Ex.D.1 similar sale deeds and in possession and
got changed the revenue records as per Exs.D.2 to 5. The Trial
Court having considered the material on record, comes to the
conclusion that in the absence of relationship with the vendor
of the defendant, how can this Court consider the case of the
plaintiff that she has got 1/3rd share in the suit property and
hence not accepted the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the
suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
an appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court having re-
assessed the material available on record, formulated several
points and answered all the points in the negative in coming to
the conclusion that as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, no
document other than a Will shall be accepted if it is presented
after four months. The First Appellate Court also taken note of
that in Ex.D.1 sale deed, the date has been wrongly typed as
27.05.2012 and the MR clearly indicates that there is mistake
in the date in the first line of sale deed and the said document
has been executed on 21.05.2013 and not in 2012. Considering
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
HC-KAR
the material on record, when the documents are produced
before the Court with regard to the sale deed is executed,
which confers the title, an observation is made that the plaintiff
has already filed a suit for partition and she may seek that, sale
deed to an extent of her share is not binding and she may
claim her share in the said purchased property and dismissed
the appeal.
7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the material available on record. However, the
learned counsel during the course of argument would submit
that the First Appellate Court made an observation with regard
to the pendency of the suit for partition and the plaintiff can
agitate the same in the said suit with regard to the sale deed is
concerned that the sale deed to an extent of her share is not
binding and in view of the said observation, liberty may be
given to the appellant to raise all contentions in the suit for
partition, which is pending. The learned counsel submits that
NC: 2025:KHC:47152
HC-KAR
the reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court shall not come in the way of considering the
said suit.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is accepted and having considered the material
available on record, no ground is made out to admit the appeal
and frame any substantial question of law. The liberty is given
to the appellant to raise all the contentions in the suit for
partition. The reasoning given by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court shall not come in the way of consideration of
the claim made in the partition suit.
10. With these observations, the second appeal is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
