Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri Oomar Farooq on 10 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
RSA No. 1527 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O RAJANNA
D/O LENKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.80,
KURUBARAHALLI,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU -560 086.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. OOMAR FAROOQ
Digitally signed by SON OF ABDUL SHAKOOR,
SHARMA ANAND AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
CHAYA
Location: HIGH RESIDING AT NO.315, 8TH CROSS,
COURT OF LAKSHMI ROAD,
KARNATAKA
SHANTHINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. LENKAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3. RANGAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE
LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
RSA No. 1527 of 2015
HC-KAR
4. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
SON OF LENKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
5. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
SON OF LENKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU -560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V. THIMMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2015 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.94/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.552/1996
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL 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:35638
RSA No. 1527 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, assailing the
Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015 in R.A.No.94/2013 on
the file of I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, allowing the appeal and setting aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013 in O.S.No.552/1996,
on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. The facts in nutshell as contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties for adjudication of this appeal are,
that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 is the purchaser of the
schedule property from defendant No.1. It is the case of the
plaintiff that, her father Lenkappa (defendant No.1) has sold
schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 without the
consent of the co-parceners in the joint family including the
plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff sought for partition and
separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property in
O.S.No.552/1996 before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
HC-KAR
3. On service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 4 entered
appearance. However, they supported the case of the plaintiff.
The defendant No.5 has filed detailed written statement
denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of
defendant No.5 that, defendant No.5 had purchased the suit
schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated
25.05.1995 and defendant No.1 has sold the schedule property
in favour of defendant No.5 for family necessity and therefore,
sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has
framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish her
case, plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and produced six
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.5 was examined as
D.W.1, and 15 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D15. The
Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by
Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013, decreed the suit.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5 has
preferred R.A.No.94/2013 before the First Appellate Court
and the same was resisted by the plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 to 4. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
HC-KAR
material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015,
allowed the appeal, consequently set aside the Judgment and
Decree dated 14.02.2013 in O.S.No.552/1996 and dismissed
the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has
preferred this appeal.
5. Sri. N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that, the Trial Court has rightly answered issue
Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative,
holding that defendant No.5 has not proved that sale of suit
schedule property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.5 for family necessity and the said aspect was not
considered by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought
for interference of this Court. Nextly, learned counsel submitted
that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 is not binding
on the plaintiff as the said suit is in respect of the relief of
declaration and injunction in respect of the schedule property
and therefore, contended that, the First Appellate Court has
committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned
judgment of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the
impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate
Court.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, and in order to understand
the relationship between the parties, it is necessary to extract
the genealogy tree which is as under:
LENKAPPA (D1)
|
|
RANGAMMA (D2)
|
|
|----------------------- |------------------------|
HANUMANTHAPPA NARASIMHAIAH GOWRAMMA
(D3) (D4) (PLAINTIFF)
8. Perusal of the genealogy tree would indicate that the
plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 & 4 are the children of defendant
Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 has purchased the suit schedule
property from defendant No.1 as per the registered Sale Deed
dated 25.05.1995. It is also to be noted as per in the recitals
of the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995, it is stated that
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
HC-KAR
defendant No.1 was in need of money for maintaining the
family and for legal necessities and as such sold the suit
schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5.
9. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Courts
below that defendant No.5 has filed O.S.No.59/1997 against
defendant No.1 seeking relief of declaration and injunction in
respect of the very same schedule property which came to be
decreed in favour of defendant No.5 and same has reached
finality. In that view of the matter, since the Judgment and
Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 has reached finality and that apart,
the sale of the property by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.5 was for family necessities and it is forthcoming
from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, wherein the
defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not contested the matter on merits
but have supported the case of the plaintiff that itself would
indicate that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have colluded with the
plaintiff for decreeing the suit. In that view of the matter, the
finding recorded by the Court below that when the property has
been disposed prior to 20.12.2004 by the kartha of the family,
the question of availability of joint family property as during
NC: 2025:KHC:35638
HC-KAR
2005 does not arise in respect of the property sold in favour of
the defendant No.5 and in fact, proviso to Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, saves the earlier dispossession of the
property through registered documents prior to 20.12.2004,
and as such the impugned Judgment and Decree cannot be
found fault with.
10. In that view of the matter, the First Appellate Court, after
re-appreciating the material on record as required under Order
XLI Rule 31 of CPC, has rightly dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff by interfering with the finding recorded by the Trial
Court, holding that the Trial Court has misconstrued the entire
case of the plaintiff and also ignored the Judgment and Decree
passed in O.S.No.59/1997, which reached finality.
11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable
grounds to formulate substantial question of law as required
under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, the Regular Second
Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
