Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from two suits tried together. One suit (O.S.No.1611/1994) was filed by the plaintiffs, claiming to be co-parceners of an undivided Hindu joint family, seeking a declaration that sale deeds executed by their predecessor, Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy, in favour of defendant No.8 (Sri Parabjoth Singh) and defendant No.11 (Smt. Shantha Abraham) were not binding on them, and for permanent injunction. The other suit (O.S.No.7498/1992) was filed by Smt. Shantha Abraham seeking perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs in the first suit. The plaintiffs contended that the suit property (Survey No.119 of Horamavu Village) was joint family property, inherited from Sri Venkataswamy Reddy and managed by the karta, Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy. They alleged that nominal sale deeds (Nambike Kraya) were executed for loans, and that the property was reconveyed. They claimed that the sale deeds to defendants No.8 and No.11 were executed without family necessity and without their consent, hence not binding. The defendants contested, asserting that the property was self-acquired by Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy, and that the plaintiffs had executed a General Power of Attorney and an affidavit confirming the sale deed to defendant No.8, and had acted as witnesses to the sale deeds. The trial court framed issues on whether the property was joint family or self-acquired, and after trial, decreed O.S.No.7498/1992 (injunction) and dismissed O.S.No.1611/1994 (declaration and injunction). The plaintiffs in the dismissed suit filed the present regular first appeals under Section 96 CPC. The appeals were heard and reserved for judgment on 27.11.2019, and pronounced on 27.01.2020. The provided text is incomplete and does not contain the appellate court's analysis, reasoning, or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (01) 31
R.F.A.No.1135/2013 c/w R.F.A.No.116/2013
For Appellants: Sri L.S. Venkatakrishna (for A1 and A2), Smt. B. Uma for Sri T.N. Srinivasareddy (for A3). For Respondents: Sri B.N. Anantha Narayana.
Sri R. Venkataswamy Reddy, Sri R. Babu Reddy, Sri K. Sreenivasa Murthy
Smt. Shantha Abraham, Sri Parabjoth Singh, Sri Suraj Abraham
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Two regular first appeals against a common judgment and decree in two suits: one suit for declaration that sale deeds are not binding and for permanent injunction (dismissed), and the other for perpetual injunction (decreed).
Remedy Sought
Appellants (plaintiffs in the dismissed suit) seek to set aside the dismissal of their suit and the decree of injunction, and for their suit to be decreed.
Filing Reason
Appellants allege that the suit property was joint family property, and sale deeds executed by the karta or his power of attorney holder without family necessity and without their consent are not binding on them.
Previous Decisions
The XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, by common judgment dated 24.09.2012, decreed O.S.No.7498/1992 (perpetual injunction in favour of Smt. Shantha Abraham) and dismissed O.S.No.1611/1994 (declaration and permanent injunction sought by the appellants).
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the ‘A’ suit property belonged to the joint family of late B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy and B.V. Krishna Reddy and presently belonged to them (plaintiffs)?
Whether the defendants prove that the ‘A’ suit property was a self-acquired property?
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1611/1994 had filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.1.1989 executed in favour of defendant No.8 Sri Parabjoth Singh and the registered sale deed dated 14.6.1988 executed in favour of defendant No.11 Smt. Shantha Abraham by late Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy through his Power of Attorney Sri A. Jayarama Reddy in respect of portions of plaint schedule ‘A’ property are not binding on them.
Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy was the kartha of the undivided Hindu Family. The said family was having considerable landed property. The kartha of the family Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy had no other income except the joint family landed property.
Despite execution of such nominal sale deeds, the lands continued in possession of undivided joint Hindu family. The said land came to be transferred from person to person at the direction of kartha and ultimately at a particular point of time, the sale deed in respect of the said land stood in the name of one Sri V. C. Rajarathnam.
It is contended that during the lifetime of Sri B. V. Ramaswamy Reddy, he had formed revenue layouts with the consent of other members in suit schedule ‘A’ property. There was an agreement regarding future partition of the sites in between the co-parceners.
Procedural History
Two suits were filed: O.S.No.1611/1994 by the appellants for declaration and injunction, and O.S.No.7498/1992 by Smt. Shantha Abraham for perpetual injunction. Both suits were tried together by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. A common judgment was rendered on 24.09.2012, decreeing O.S.No.7498/1992 and dismissing O.S.No.1611/1994. The aggrieved plaintiffs in O.S.No.1611/1994 filed two regular first appeals under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeals were heard and reserved for judgment on 27.11.2019, and were pronounced on 27.01.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
