The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1870 OF 2021 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O. SHIVANNA @ SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT BALEGADDE SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR T., ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. B.J. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O. K. JOGISHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O BELLUPETE VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SRI. M.S.SHIVANNA @ SHIVAIAH S/O. LATE. SHANTHA MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT MALALI VILLAGE AND POST SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA MAJOR - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR R/AT MALALI VILLAGE AND POST SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 4. SMT. S.S.JAYANTHI D/O. SRI. M.S.SHIVANNA @ SHIVAIAH MAJOR R/AT MALALI VILLAGE AND POST SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.13/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.115/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SAKALESHPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of Trial Court passed in O.S.No.115/2012 and also appeal in R.A.No.13/2019. 2. The factual matrix of case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that suit schedule property is an ancestral property and the sale deed executed by other family - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR members in favour of the first defendant is null and void and also contend that the plaintiff was major as on the date of selling the property on 20.03.2002 and falsely shown as minor and executed the sale deed. Hence, sought the relief of declaration to declare that sale deed is null and void. 3. The defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written statement contending that sale deed was executed in 2002 and suit was filed in 2012 and the same is barred by limitation. It is also contended that sale was made by the parents on behalf of the minor i.e., appellant also and hence, the suit itself is filed only to harass the respondents. 4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, even after remand also, considered both oral and documentary evidence and taken note of the fact that suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.03.2002 in 2012 and also taken note of the fact that earlier also filed a suit in O.S.No.4/2012 for the relief of partition and the same was dismissed and thereafter, an appeal was also filed and appeal was also dismissed. When the plaintiff already filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession and the same - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR was dismissed, the question of canceling the sale deed does not arise. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that plaintiff was fully aware that property was sold in 2002 itself and she was a member of the family and she had the knowledge and parties with the possession. When such being the case, Articles 58 and 60 of the Limitation Act applies and comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.13/2019 and main contention was taken in the appeal that Ex.P2 was produced before the Court i.e., Transfer Certificate that as on the date of selling the property, she was a major, but suppressed the said fact that as she was a minor and executed the sale deed on her behalf also and the same was taken note by the First Appellate Court and in paragraph No.19 discussed with regard to the fact that the present appellant and one sister was minor at the time of sale deed in the year 2002 and father had executed the same as minor guardian for the family necessity. Now, the plaintiff cannot - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR deny the sale deed after ten years and the plaintiff has failed to prove the pleadings that she was a major and only she was left by the father. There must have been some reason, if she was left alone. When the names of other daughters is seen in the sale deed including the name of present appellant and also detailed discussion was made with regard to the earlier suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.4/2012 and the same was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed and also taken note of lower Court has discussed that, when plaintiff has got no share in the suit schedule property, she cannot challenge the sale deed executed by her father, defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same is also considered invoking Articles 58 and 60 of the Limitation Act. The First Appellate Court reassessing the evidence available on record affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that Ex.P2 was not considered by both the Courts while dismissing the suit and confirming the same. The counsel would contend that appellant is a daughter of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR defendant No.2 and also suit schedule property is an ancestral property and when she was not a party to the sale deed though she was shown as minor and represented by their parents and also contend that she was major at the time of execution of the sale deed and her consent while selling the property is mandatory, but not taken. Hence, it requires reconsideration and this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, suit is filed for the relief of declaration to declare that sale deed executed by the other family members as null and void. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed in 2002 and suit was filed in 2012 and also contend that she was 19 years old as on the date of sale of the property and when she was a major according to the appellant, ought to have challenged the same within three years, but the same was not challenged and only reason was given that when the certified copy of the sale deed was taken in 2012 came to know about the same and the fact that she was a member of the family as on the date of sale is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR not in dispute and she was also a major according to the appellant and Ex.P2 is also marked. When the property was sold by the parents along with other sister and she was shown as a minor and represented through guardian and she was the family member and sale deed was dated 20.03.2002, after almost ten years, the sale is challenged and having the knowledge about parting of possession when the property was sold in 2002 and the same was within the knowledge, even after attaining majority according to the appellant and even as on the date of sale also, when she was major, ought to have challenged the sale deed within three years and the same was not challenged. Even the suit which was filed earlier in O.S.No.4/2012 is also dismissed and the same is also confirmed in the appeal and inspite of it, the present suit is filed challenging the sale and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and when she had the knowledge about the sale of the property in the year 2002 and parted with possession rightly pressed into service Articles 58 and 60 of the Limitation Act, even the aspect of limitation is also taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24662 RSA No. 1870 of 2021 HC-KAR find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law. 8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42