Karnataka High Court
Smt R P Umadevi vs Sri R P Shivashankar on 15 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
RSA No. 1446 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2022(PA/DE/IN)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. R.P. UMADEVI
W/O SURENDRA KUMAR
D/O LATE R.B. PUTTABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT CHOLUR ROAD
CHINTAMANI TOWN
CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN CODE -563 123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R.P. SHIVASHANKAR
Digitally signed S/O LATE R.B. PUTTABASAPPA
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. R.P. MANJUNATH
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE R.B. PUTTABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
RAJANAKUNTE VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
PIN CODE -560 088.
3. M/S. PRESTIGE CONSTRUCTIONS
EARLIER HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT NO.303, 3RD FLOOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
RSA No. 1446 of 2022
HC-KAR
COPER ARCH INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU -560 001.
NOW CALLED AS
PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LIMITED
FALCON HOUSE, NO.1
MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD
BENGALURU -560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. REZWAN RAZACK.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.163/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2016
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1646/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
RSA No. 1446 of 2022
HC-KAR
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 suit is filed against the brothers seeking the
relief of partition, declaration and permanent injunction
contending that suit schedule properties are the joint
family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and sale
deed dated 15.12.1993 executed by the father and
brothers in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on her
share.
4. The defendant No.3 appeared and contested the
matter by filing written statement. The Trial Court having
considered the evidence of P.W.1, answered all the issues
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
HC-KAR
as 'negative' and dismissed the suit. The Trial Court also
taken note of the fact that property was sold in the year
1993 itself and the marriage of plaintiff was solemnized in
the year 1994 and the same is also even prior to
Karnataka Amendment and subsequent Central
Amendment is made in the year 2004. The Trial Court also
taken note of the fact that though property was sold in
1993, suit was filed in the year 2004 and at the time of
selling the property, she had attained majority and not
filed the suit within 3 years from the date of sale of the
property.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.163/2018. The First Appellate Court,
considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo,
framed the point for consideration whether the Trial Court
is justified in holding that sale deed dated 15.12.1993
executed by defendant No.3 is binding on the plaintiff and
whether it requires interference of this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
HC-KAR
6. The First Appellate Court also having
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, particularly taken note of Ex.P1-the marriage
invitation card which discloses that her marriage was
performed on 21.06.1994 and also taken note of Exs.P3
and P4 i.e., the RTC Extracts relating to suit item Nos.1
and 2 properties which disclose that name of Puttabasappa
is shown as owner/occupier of these properties for the
year 1993-1994. In the subsequent entries in these RTC
Extract discloses that suit item Nos.1 and 2 properties
have been converted into non-agricultural purpose. The
Trial Court so also taken note of the fact that, if the father
of the plaintiff has sold the ancestral joint family
properties against the interest of the plaintiff, then she has
to challenge the said sale deed within 3 years as per
Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff has filed this
suit in the year 2004 by showing her age as 29 years
which discloses that she was born in the year 1975 itself.
Thereby, it is clear that she has attained the age of
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
HC-KAR
majority in the year 1993 during which her father has sold
the properties to defendant No.3. If she has not attained
the age of majority on the date of sale transaction, then
she ought to have challenged the alienation made through
Exs.P8 to P16 documents within 3 years from the date of
attaining majority as per Article 60 (a) of the Limitation
Act.
7. The plaintiff has instituted the suit in the year
2004 showing her age as 29 years after lapse of 11 years
from the date of sale transaction. Exs.D11 to D13 are the
sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 in favour of
subsequent purchasers effected in the year 2001 and 2003
and taken note of the fact that even subsequent to the
sale made in favour of defendant No.3, the defendant No.3
in turn sold the property prior to filing of the suit and
properties were also exchanged between different persons
and the same also not remained as an agricultural land
and converted the land for non-agricultural purpose. These
are the aspects which are also taken note of and both the
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
HC-KAR
Courts also taken note of the fact that sale was made in
the year 1993.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would contend that amendment was brought in the year
1994 and in respect of an unmarried daughter is
concerned, they would get the right. But, in the case on
hand, she had married prior to the said amendment. When
such being the case, both the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court taken note of the material available
on record and both the Courts have assigned reasons.
Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that both the Courts have
committed an error in not considering the material
available on record and not justified in holding that
appellant is not entitled for share and the contention that
living daughter is entitled for a share in the suit schedule
property cannot be accepted and when the transaction has
taken place in the year 1993 itself and the question of
daughter is also a co-parcener does not arise. Hence, I do
NC: 2025:KHC:40992
HC-KAR
not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any
substantial question of law considering the factual aspects
of the case and there is no merit in the appeal.
9. In view of the discussion made above. I pass
the following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
