Karnataka High Court
Ramlingappa S/O Sanna Sabanna Kakalwar vs Basamma D/O Siddappa Kakalwar Since ... on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
RSA No. 200146 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200146 OF 2014
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMLINGAPPA S/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
2. DODDA SABANNA S/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
3. SABAMMA W/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
4. RAJAPPA S/O NARSAPPA
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 5. BUGGAPPA S/O NARASAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. ASHAPPA S/O SAYANNA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
ALL R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. AND DIST. GULBARGA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S. B. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
RSA No. 200146 of 2014
HC-KAR
1. BASSAMMA D/O SIDDAPPA KAKALWAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
A. NARASAMMA W/O SANNA SABANNA,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & HOUSEHOLD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER
LR RESPONDENT NO.1(B)
B. SAVITRAMMA W/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH ARE R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR.
2. BUGGAMMA D/O SIDDAPPA KAKALWAR
SINCE DECD. BY LRS.
A. AYYAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA NEERATI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR-585321.
B. BHAWANT S/O SABANNA MADHAWARDAVARU,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
R/O VILLAGE KONKAL,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR-585321.
NOW R/O PERMANENTLY AT
GANDHI NAGAR, HYDRABAD CITY (A.P)-500001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE R1(B);
V/O DATED 23.07.2024 NOTICE TO R2(A) & R2(B)
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO.21/2012
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
RSA No. 200146 of 2014
HC-KAR
YADGIRI, AS FAR AS IN GRANTING THE RELIEF OF
DECLARATION; AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.30/2003 BY THE COURT OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE, YADGIR DECREEING THE SUIT TO THE
PLAINTIFF FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION; BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST THROUGH OUT AND
THEREBY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This appeal is by the unsuccessful defendant
No.2/subsequent transferee claiming title through
defendant No.1 assailing the concurrent judgments and
decree rendered by the Courts below, wherein, both the
Courts having declared that plaintiffs and defendant No.1
are the joint owners, have granted the relief of partition to
the plaintiffs, declaring that the sale deed obtained by
defendant No.2 through defendant No.1 is not binding on
plaintiffs' joint half share in the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the suit was decreed holding that the
plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession
of their equal share held by their father in the suit
schedule property. Consequently, defendant
No.2/subsequent transferee was restrained from
interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession. The
First Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of the
Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed.
2. For the sake of brevity, rank of the parties is
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The family tree is as under:
Tammappa
Hanmanthu (died) Siddappa (dieed) Narasappa (died)
Timmappa
(Deft-1) Bassamma Buggamma
(Plaint. No.1) (Plaint. No.2)
Mallamma
(died)
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
4. The plaintiffs, who are the daughters of one
Siddappa, the second son of Tammappa, instituted the
present suit seeking a declaration that they are the joint
owners of the suit schedule property along with defendant
No.1. Consequentially, they sought a declaration that the
registered sale deed dated 13.10.2003 executed by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and
void and not binding upon their share. The plaintiffs also
prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining
defendant No.2 from interfering with their peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit land, asserting their
right to joint possession.
5. Upon service of summons, both defendants
entered appearance and filed a common written
statement, wherein they categorically denied the plaintiffs'
claim of joint ownership. Defendant No.1 specifically
contended that the suit land had been allotted to his
father, Hanmanthu, in a prior family partition. It was
further averred that upon the death of his father, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
property was mutated in his name, thereby making him
the absolute owner with full right to alienate the property.
On this premise, defendant No.1 justified the sale in
favour of defendant No.2, asserting that the same was a
valid and lawful conveyance. The defendants, therefore,
sought dismissal of the suit.
6. The parties went to trial and adduced oral and
documentary evidence in support of their respective
claims. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record,
particularly Exhibits P1 to P6, the Trial Court observed that
the plea of defendant No.1 namely, that the suit property
was allotted to his father Hanmanthu was unsupported by
any documentary material. The Court noted that, on the
contrary, the records revealed that the suit property was
originally allotted to Narasappa in a family partition. After
Narasappa's demise, the property was inherited by his
widow Mallamma, who also died issueless. In that
backdrop, the Trial Court held that the property reverted
to the two surviving branches of the family namely, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
branch of Siddappa and the branch of Hanmanthu.
Consequently, the Trial Court concluded that the
subsequent mutation in favour of defendant No.1, effected
after the death of Mallamma, did not confer any exclusive
ownership upon him, nor could he assert that the property
was allotted solely to his father.
7. Having recorded a finding that the plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 were joint owners of the suit land, the
Trial Court moulded the relief and decreed the suit partly
by declaring that defendant No.1 had no authority to
alienate the entire extent of the property in favour of
defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated
13.10.2003 executed for a consideration of Rs.48,000/-. It
was accordingly held that the said sale deed is not binding
upon the plaintiffs to the extent of their half share in the
suit property. And accordingly granted half share in the
suit land.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
8. Defendant No.2, being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an
appeal before the First Appellate Court. It is significant to
note that while preferring the appeal, defendant No.2 did
not implead the legal representatives of defendant No.1,
who had since expired. Upon re-appreciation of the
evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court, the First
Appellate Court found no infirmity or perversity in the
findings recorded and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The said concurrent findings are now assailed in this
second appeal.
9. This Court, by order dated 27.06.2014,
admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial
questions of law for consideration:
(i) Whether the law of limitation would apply in
so far as the claim for partition and declaration of
their share by Class-II heirs?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether they are required to specifically
question any alienation made prior to the suit if there
was a pre-existing right?
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendant No.2 and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.
11. This Court has given its anxious consideration
to the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, and the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below while decreeing the plaintiffs' suit.
The records have been meticulously examined in the
backdrop of the substantial questions of law framed at the
time of admission of this appeal.
Regarding Substantial Question of Law No.1:
12. A close scrutiny of the written statement filed
by defendant No.1 reveals that no plea of limitation was
ever raised by him in the pleadings before the Trial Court.
The core defence advanced by defendant No.1 was that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
the suit land had been allotted to his father, Hanmanthu,
in a family partition, and upon his father's demise, the
property devolved upon him as a Class-I heir under the
Hindu Succession Act. The case of limitation was neither
pleaded nor established.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendant No.2, however, sought to advance an
argument that since the name of defendant No.1 was
mutated in the record of rights pertaining to the suit land
immediately after the death of Mallamma in the year
1988, the same constituted an act of ouster, and
therefore, the plaintiffs' suit, filed much later, ought to
have been barred by limitation.
14. This contention, in the considered view of this
Court, is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law.
Mere mutation of the name of one co-sharer or co-heir in
the revenue records does not, by itself, constitute ouster
or establish exclusive possession. Mutation entries are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer
title nor extinguish the lawful rights of other co-heirs. To
constitute ouster, there must be clear, unequivocal, and
hostile acts on the part of one co-owner, which are
inconsistent with the joint ownership of others, coupled
with actual physical dispossession of the co-heirs and an
assertion of exclusive ownership to their knowledge.
15. In the present case, there are no pleadings
whatsoever alleging such acts of ouster or exclusive
possession by defendant No.1. On the contrary, the
evidence on record clearly establishes that the suit
property originally belonged to Narasappa, and upon his
demise, the same was inherited by his widow, Mallamma,
who died issueless. Consequently, the property reverted to
the two surviving branches of the family, namely, the
branch of Siddappa and the branch of Hanmanthu, both of
whom were Class-II heirs entitled to succeed to the estate
of Mallamma, who had died intestate.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
16. It is also relevant to note that the plaintiffs are
the daughters of Siddappa. Considering the prevailing
social circumstances, it cannot be overlooked that married
daughters often reside away from the ancestral home and
may not be aware of subsequent mutations effected
unilaterally by male members of the family. Hence, such
unilateral revenue entries cannot be construed as hostile
assertion of ownership or as creating a cause of action for
limitation to run.
17. The records, including Exhibits P1 to P6,
categorically indicate that the property stood in the name
of Narasappa, and thereafter in the name of Mallamma,
thereby negating the defence plea that the land was ever
allotted to Hanmanthu. The subsequent entry in the name
of defendant No.1 after the death of Mallamma was thus
without legal foundation and could not extinguish the
legitimate rights of the plaintiffs in the suit property.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that no plea of limitation or
ouster has been made out on the basis of the pleadings or
evidence on record. Consequently, Substantial Question of
Law No.1 does not arise for consideration in this appeal
and is accordingly answered in the negative.
Regarding substantial question of law No.2:
19. Before this Court proceeds further deems it fit
to cull out the prayer column of t he plaint, more
particularly, prayer No.2, the same is extracted, which
reads as under:
"2) It is further declare that, the registered
sale bearing document No.2188/2002-03, dated
13.01.2003, executed by defendant No.1 in
favour of defendant No.2 is null and not binding
on plaintiffs."
20. On a careful reading of Prayer No.2 in the
plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs have sought a
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
declaration that the registered sale deed dated
13.10.2003, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.2, is null and void and not binding upon
them. The foundation of this relief rests on the assertion
that the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Siddappa, have
an independent and legitimate share in the suit schedule
property. The said right flows from their status as co-
sharers in the ancestral estate, representing the branch of
Siddappa, who was one of the two sons of the original
propositus, Tammappa.
21. It is thus manifest that defendant No.1, who
represents the other branch of the family through
Hanmanthu, could not have lawfully conveyed the entire
extent of the suit land to defendant No.2, as his rights
were confined only to his undivided share. Any alienation
made by one co-owner in respect of the entire joint
property, without the consent of the other co-owners, can
at best operate only to the extent of his own share and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
cannot divest the lawful ownership of the remaining co-
sharers.
22. The plaintiffs, therefore, were justified in
seeking a declaration that the alienation made by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was not
binding on their legitimate share. The prayer in the plaint,
when read in its proper context, clearly indicates that the
plaintiffs were not seeking to avoid the entire sale deed in
its entirety, but were confining their challenge only to the
extent of their undivided interest in the property. The
expression "null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs"
used in the plaint must, therefore, be construed in a
restricted sense, as a challenge to the sale deed only to
the extent of the plaintiffs' share, and not as an absolute
declaration invalidating the sale altogether.
23. The Trial Court, while moulding the relief,
rightly interpreted the plaintiffs' prayer in this light and
held that the sale deed dated 13.10.2003 was not binding
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
on the plaintiffs to the extent of their half share, while
leaving the sale intact insofar as the share of defendant
No.1 was concerned. The First Appellate Court has also
concurred with this reasoning and affirmed that the
declaration sought was limited in nature and wholly
justified.
24. In this view of the matter, the contention
advanced on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.2 that
the plaintiffs had not sought an absolute declaration
against the entire sale deed is without merit. The relief
sought and granted by the Courts below squarely aligns
with settled principles governing co-ownership and
alienation by one co-sharer.
25. Accordingly, this Court finds that Substantial
Question of Law No.2 does not arise for consideration in
the present appeal, and the same is answered in the
negative.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6014
HC-KAR
26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands
dismissed.
Learned counsel Sri Sandeep Vijayakumar Patil is
permitted to file vakalath in the office within two weeks.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:SI
