SRI.KALEGOWDA v. SRI NAGARAJA C

S/O LATE SRI.CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR R/O ARAKESHWARA PRASANNA KC ROAD, JANNAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BHADRAVATHI-577 301

#3. SMT.ASHA W/O SRI.YOGESH C AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O ARAKESHWARA PRASANNA KC ROAD, JANNAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BHADRAVATHI-577 301

#4. SRI.DISHANTH Y S/O SRI YOGESH C AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O ARAKESHWARA PRASANNA KC ROAD, JANNAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BHADRAVATHI - 577 301

#5. KUM DEEKSHA Y D/O SRI. YOGESH C AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O ARAKESHWARA PRASANNA KC ROAD, JANNAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BHADRAVATHI-577 301

#6. SMT.MAHALAKSHMI W/O SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA D/O LATE SRI.CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR R/O 2ND CROSS NRUPATHUNGA NAGARA HOSAMANE BHADRAVATHI-577 301

#7. SRI GANESH H.S. S/O SRI H.N.SOMASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O HEBBANDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BHADRAVATHI - 577 301 …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.93/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND POSSESSION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant - purchaser assailing the judgment and decree dated

01.12.2025 passed in O.S.No.93/2022 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhadravathi. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR

#2. The parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

#3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under; The Channaiah Smt. Puttalakshmamma instituted a suit for partition in O.S. No.93/2022 seeking his legitimate share in the joint family properties. He also sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 29.01.2021 executed by defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and late Smt. Puttalakshmamma in respect of the suit schedule ‘D’ and ‘E’ properties in favour of defendant No.6 and the sale deed dated 24.02.2021 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with Smt. Puttalakshmamma in respect of the suit schedule ‘F’ property in favour of defendant No.7 are not valid and not binding on his legitimate share.

#4. Defendant No.7, who is the appellant before this Court, filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff is estopped from seeking partition in - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR respect of the alienated schedule ‘F’ property. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the transaction in favour of defendant No.7 and having acquiesced to the same without raising any objection, has lost his right to enforce partition in respect of the said property.

#5. After the framing of issues, the plaintiff and the defendants led their respective evidence in support of their claims.

#6. The Trial Court, having regard to the admitted relationship between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 held that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. It further held that since the plaintiff was not a signatory to the sale deed relating to schedule ‘F’ property, the alienation made by the widow of Channaiah along with defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.7 is not binding on the plaintiff’s share. The Trial Court, however, reserved liberty to defendant Nos.6 - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR and 7 to work out their equities, if any, in the final decree proceedings.

#7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant - Sri.G.S.Balagangadhara, advanced elaborate persuasive submissions and sought indulgence of this Court to issue notice to the plaintiff, this Court bearing in mind the protective relief already granted by the Trial Court while drawing the preliminary decree is not inclined to accede to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

#8. In the light of the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration before this Court: (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffer from perversity and warrant interference by this Court? (ii) Whether the present appellant— defendant No.7, being a purchaser of an undivided share, has locus standi to challenge - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court? (iii) What order or decree? Findings on Point Nos.(i) and (ii) :-

#9. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have consistently held that the rights of a stranger purchaser in a partition suit are extremely limited. A purchaser of an undivided share has no independent to participate the partition proceedings or to resist the claim of a coparcener, unless a specific plea of collusiveness or fraud is raised and substantiated in the written statement.

#10. In the case on hand, defendant No.7 is admittedly a stranger purchaser who has purchased an undivided share in an ancestral joint family property. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is not a signatory to the sale deed obtained by defendant No.7. The legal principles governing alienation of joint family ancestral property and - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR the rights of a non-alienating coparcener are well settled. A non-alienating member of a joint family is entitled to seek partition, and any alienation made without his consent furnishes a valid cause of action to institute a suit for partition. This is precisely the course adopted by the plaintiff in the present case.

#11. Aggrieved by the alienation of the suit schedule property by late Smt. Puttalakshmamma along with defendant Nos.1 to 5, the plaintiff has approached the Civil Court seeking partition and a consequential declaration that the sale deed obtained by defendant No.7 is not binding on his legitimate share. The nature of the relief sought squarely conforms to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ganapathi Santaram Bhosale and another vs. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni and other1. Therefore, defendant No.7, having purchased only an undivided share, has no locus standi to assail the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court. 1 ILR 1985 KAR 1115 - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR

#12. It is also significant to note that the Trial Court, while drawing the preliminary decree, has expressly reserved liberty to defendant No.7 to work out his equities, if any, in the final decree proceedings. This Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has not only correctly drawn the preliminary decree but has also adequately safeguarded the equitable interests of defendant No.7.

#13. The plaintiff has not questioned the quantification of shares determined by the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court has confined its scrutiny to the limited issue as to whether the declaration granted by the Trial Court holding that the alienation made by late Smt. Puttalakshmamma and defendant Nos.1 to 5 is not binding on the plaintiff’s share warrants interference. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the Negative. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1687 RFA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR

#14. Point No.(iii):- In view of the findings recorded on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The appellant - defendant No.7 is at liberty to work out his equitable rights in the event plaintiff fails to initiate final decree proceedings. (iii) It is made clear that if the plaintiff does not initiate Final Decree Proceedings, defendant No.7, who is the stranger purchaser of legitimate share of other co-members, is entitled to initiate Final Decree Proceedings and work out his equitable rights. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15