Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit for partition and separate possession of agricultural and house properties situated in Mahadevakodigehalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk, filed by the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3 in appeal) against the defendants (appellants herein). The plaintiffs claimed to be the legal heirs of Krishnappa, son of Venkataramanappa, who was one of the two sons of Annayappa. According to the plaintiffs, Annayappa was one of three sons of the common propositus Venkataramaiah, and upon a prior family partition, the suit properties were allotted to the branch of Annayappa. The plaintiffs asserted that the properties remained joint family properties in the hands of Annayappa and subsequently devolved on Venkataramanappa and Venkataswamappa (defendant no. 1). They alleged that defendant no. 1, taking advantage of his position and based on manipulated revenue entries, denied their share and also alienated a portion to defendant no. 3 and later to defendant no. 4. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 463/2006 seeking half share and mesne profits. The defendants, including defendant nos. 1 to 3 and subsequently impleaded defendant nos. 4 to 7, resisted the suit by denying the genealogy, contending that the plaintiffs were strangers and that Jayamma was not the legally wedded wife of Venkataramanappa. Defendant no. 4 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value. The trial court, after framing issues, partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. During the pendency of the appeal, necessary parties were brought on record. The High Court reserved judgment, but the extracted text does not contain the court’s reasoning or final order.
Issue of Consideration
Correctness of trial court's decree in a suit for partition and separate possession involving disputes over joint family status, relationship, and alienation of property
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 63
Regular First Appeal No. 620 of 2011 (PAR)
Krishna S Dixit, Ramachandra D. Huddar
T. Prakash, S.M. Kulkarni, M. Shanmugam Yadav, Prashanth P.N., L.S. Chikkanagoudar, H.B. Uday Kumar
Venkataswamappa, Muniyamma (represented by Venkatamma), Bhagyamma
Hemanthkumar, Pushpavathi, Umamma, C. Manjunath, K.S. Basavarj, M. Krupakara, T.S. Ramakrishna, Markandaiah, Nagarathnamma, Laxmi Devamma, Srinivasa, Manjunatha K, Saraswathi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of joint family agricultural and house properties
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties with mesne profits
Filing Reason
Defendant No. 1 refused to partition the joint family properties and allegedly created illegal revenue entries and alienated a portion to third parties, denying plaintiffs their rightful share
Previous Decisions
Trial court partly decreed the suit in O.S. No. 463/2006; previously, Jayamma and Krishnappa had filed O.S. No. 137/2002 which was dismissed
Issues
Whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants?
Whether Jayamma is the wife of Venkataramanappa?
Whether Krishnappa is the father of plaintiff no.1 and 2 and husband of the 3rd plaintiff?
Whether the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to half shares in the suit schedule properties?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits derived from the suit 'A' schedule property?
Whether the defendant no.4 proves that he is the bonafide purchaser for value and in possession of the written statement schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 9-8-2006?
Whether the defendant no.4 proves that the suit is not maintainable in law?
Whether the defendant no.4 proves that the suit is not properly valued and C.F. paid is insufficient?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties devolved from propositus Venkataramaiah, that they were entitled to equal share, and that defendant no.1 had illegally transferred properties and denied them share.
Defendants contended that plaintiffs were strangers to the family, Jayamma was not the legally wedded wife of Venkataramanappa, and the previous suit had been dismissed; defendant no.2 claimed independent ownership of certain properties.
Defendant no.4 argued that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and was in possession of the purchased portion.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th December 2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, in O.S.No.463/2006.
According to plaintiffs, one Venkataramaiah was the propositus, who had 3 sons by name Annayappa, Narayanappa & Munivenkatappa. Annayappa is their ancestor.
It is alleged that, defendant No. 1 behind the back of plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 got transferred the revenue entries in respect of schedule properties in his name and subsequently illegally created a document in favor of defendant No. 3 in respect of a portion of item No. 3 in 'A' schedule property.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 463/2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, for partition and possession. The trial court framed issues and partly decreed the suit on 18.12.2010. Aggrieved, defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed Regular First Appeal No. 620/2011 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. During pendency, appellant no.2 died and her legal heir was brought on record as appellant no.2(A). Respondents 8 to 13 were impleaded as per court order dated 21.03.2023. The appeal was reserved for judgment and pronounced on 26.07.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
