The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2014 (PAR-) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: 1. SRI. YELLAPPA, S/O LATE POOJARI YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O MEDEHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. (BY SRI SIDDAPPA B M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. POOJARI ERAPPA, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O LATE THIMMNAPPA, 3. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED 34 YEARS 4. SRI KUMAR S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 5. SRI M. S. RAJESH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
6. SRI GURUMURTHY S/O K BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 7. SMT NAGAMMA D/O K BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 8. SRI RAJANNA S/O K BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 9. SMT ERAMMA W/O LATE POOJARI YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS ALL ARE R/O MEDEHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAJWAL P.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SACHIN V. R., ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8; SRI M.G. KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; R1 & R5 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 26.02.2019 R6 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2014 PASSED IN R.A.No.10/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2014 PASSED IN O.S.No.8/2011 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2014 passed in R.A. No.10/2014 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, and the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 passed in O.S. No.8/2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV Chitradurga. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial Court. The Appellant was the plaintiff No.2 was plaintiff No.1. The respondents were the defendants and respondents No.9. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession and to declare the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR registered sale deeds as null and void, and to declare the sale deeds dated 26.04.1971, 29.05.1973 and 19.05.1994, executed between defendant No.1 and the deceased Siddappa and defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 are not binding on their rights. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Poojari Yellappa is the father of defendant No.1 and the father of plaintiff No.2. The mother of defendant No.1 is Dodda Eramma. After her death, Poojari Yellappa married plaintiff No.1 and she is the legally wedded wife of Poojari Yellappa. Out of their wedlock, plaintiff No.1 gave birth to plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family. It is contended that the late Poojari Yellappa was engaged in agriculture on the suit schedule properties and performed poojas at the Shanimahatma Temple at Medehalli. After his demise, defendant No.1 succeeded in performing the pooja being the eldest son of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and defendants were living jointly. It is contended that, the plaintiffs herein aware of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR transactions between the defendents, was taking place behind their backs. Hence, the plaintiffs requested for partition and separate possession, but the defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the entire averments made in the plaint, and accordingly, prayed to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a separate written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Hanumanthabhovi @ Dodda Erabhovi S/o Poojari Thimmabhovi. He gifted the properties in favour of Dodda Eramma i.e., the mother of defendant No.1, under a registered gift deed dated 08.12.1994. By virtue of the registered gift deed, she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. After her death, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR defendant No.1 being the son, succeeded to the property of deceased Dodda Eramma. It is contended that the plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of Poojari Yellappa and plaintiff No.2 is the son. They have no locus standi to seek a partition and separate possession. It is contended that, Defendant No.1 has sold the properties to late Siddappa, under a registered sale deeds dated 26.04.1971 and 23.07.1973. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Defendant No. 4 filed a written statement taking similar contentions, as taken by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27. In rebuttal, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.2 and 3 was examined as DW.1, defendant No. 4(c) was examined as DW.2, and marked 40 documents as Exs. D1 to D40. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.3. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with a compensatory cost of ₹10,000 payable to the defendant Nos.2 to 4 vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.8/2011, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.10/2014 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the judgment of the trial Court, vide judgment dated 26.04.2014. The Plaintiff No.2, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff No.2. He submitted that Dodda Gramma acquired - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR the suit schedule property under a registered gift deed. She died interstate leaving behind plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as her legal heirs. He submitted that the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule properties as per Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He submits that after the demise of Dodda Eramma, the Poojari Yellappa and defendant No.1 were entitled to a half share in the estate of Dodda Eramma. He submitted that Poojari Yellappa died, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are entitled to a share in Poojari Yellappa's share. The said aspect was not correctly considered by the Courts below. He submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary, perverse and capricious. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR 11. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by one Hanumanthabhovi, who was the brother of Dodda Eramma, i.e., the mother of defendant No.1. He gifted the suit schedule properties in favour of Dodda Eramma under a registered gift deed dated 08.12.1994. By virtue of a registered gift deed dated 08.12.1994, she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. She died intestate, leaving behind defendant No.1 as her legal heir. Although the plaintiffs contend that they are also the legal heirs of the deceased Dodda Eramma, they are not the legal heirs of the deceased Dodda Eramma. Admittedly, Dodda Eramma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties under a registered gift deed dated 08.12.1994, and she died intestate. After her demise, the property devolved upon, firstly her son and daughter, including her husband, as per clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. During the lifetime of Poojari Yellappa, he did not file a suit claiming his share. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR Defendant No.1 alone had succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 sold the properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under a registered sale deeds dated 26.04.1971, 29.05.1973 and 19.05.1994. Subsequently, after the execution of registered sale deeds by defendant No.1 in favour of the late Siddappa i.e, the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, defendant No.1 filed the present suit through plaintiffs seeking a partition and separate possession and also the registered sale deeds executed by him. Having alienated the suit schedule properties, if the defendants make any admission in favour of the plaintiffs, such admission is not binding on the purchaser. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1982 NOC 244 in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Smt. Prem Kanta and Another. The trial Court, considering Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, has rightly held that defendant No.1 alone inherited the properties of the deceased Dodda Eramma and he had already sold the properties in 1971 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR and 1973. The said registered sale deeds were registered in 1971 and 1973. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries (P) Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2012)1 SCC 656, held that the “registration of a document gives notice to the whole world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if a document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds regarding the transaction and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, regarding the nature and extent of the rights that person may have, in that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently have a right, title or interest in the property.” - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR 12. Though, the plaintiffs had knowledge regarding the execution of a registered sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of the late Siddappa i.e, the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in 1971 and 1973, the plaintiffs slept over their rights for more than four decades. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for relief of declaration is barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 13. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the plaintiffs. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
O R D E R (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:19735 RSA No. 1141 of 2014 HC-KAR (iv) Pending considerations of any applications if any, stands disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17