Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20671 (KAR)

SMT. AKKACHAMMA v. SRI MUNICHINNAPPA

RSA/1152/2020 · 2025-03-06

Ashok S Kinagi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AKKACHAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O DODDAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 139. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S.AMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MUNICHINNAPPA S/O LATE JUNJAPPA @ DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SRI. UCHAPPA S/O MUNICHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O MUNICHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS No.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT THETTAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 060. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 3. M CHANNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. PREMA W/O M. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SMT. PADMA D/O M. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5. SRI. SUNIL S/O M. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 6. SMT. HEMANTHA D/O M. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS No. 3 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.511/A, MEGALA STREET KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060. 7. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNICHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KUMBAR STREET MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 8. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O MUNICHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O DODDA KALLAHALLI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 139. 9. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O MUNICHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O KENGERI HOBLI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 060. 10. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O MUNICHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O DODDAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 139. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED IN R.A.No.114/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2016 PASSED IN OS No.226/2011 (OLD No.306/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MALUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 14.01.2020 passed in R.A.No.114/2016 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kolar, confirming the judgment and decree - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 dated 13.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.226/2011, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and injunction regarding the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff, and the same was acquired under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1975 in the name of her husband i.e., defendant No.8 out of financial assistance from her parents. The plaintiff’s husband, through a registered gift deed dated 12.07.2001, transferred the suit properties in her favour. However, defendant Nos.1 to 7, by playing fraud and misrepresentation on defendant No.8, included - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 the suit properties under the registered partition deed, as the joint family properties and allotted the same to the share of defendant No.8 (husband of the plaintiff) and another family member, under a registered partition deed dated 03.06.2003. The plaintiff’s husband had challenged the registered partition deed dated 03.06.2003 in O.S.No.48/2011 on the ground that the partition was unequal and defendant Nos.1 to 7 played a fraud on defendant No.8. Hence, it is contended that the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties based on the registered gift deed dated 12.07.2001. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 denied the title of the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for the declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of defendant Nos.1 to 8. There was a partition - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 effected amongst defendant Nos.1 to 8. The said partition was reduced into writing and registered on 03.06.2003. It is contended that defendant No.8 is not an absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, and he has no right to gift the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties under a registered gift deed. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. Defendant No.8 filed a written statement admitting the contents of the plaint and sought to decree the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Based on the pleadings above, the trial Court framed the relevant issues and additional issues. 7. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked sixty documents as Exs.P1 to 60. On the other hand, the defendants examined three witnesses as DWs.1 to 3 and marked nine documents as Exs.D1 to 9. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 and on the assessment of the oral and the documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 13.06.2016. 8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.226/2011, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.114/2016 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Kolar. The first appellate Court, on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 9. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by defendant No.8 under the registered sale deed dated 17.07.1975. He submits that defendant No.8 gifted the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated 12.07.2001. Based on the registered gift deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. He also submits that defendant No.8 is the husband of the plaintiff. He has filed a suit for reopening a partition, in O.S.No.48/2011, which is pending consideration in RSA No.1116/2020. He submits that the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1. She has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and deposed that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by defendant No.8. He gifted the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff under a registered gift deed. Based on the registered gift deed, the plaintiff became the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, and revenue records were transferred in the plaintiff’s name. Defendant No.8 filed a suit, challenging the registered partition deed executed amongst the defendants, in O.S.No.48/2011. 14. During the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that as of the date of executing the registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, the family was a joint family, and no partition was effected. Further, the plaintiff also examined one M. Ambarish as PW.2, who has deposed that the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by the registered gift deed and that she is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Further, when he was examined as PW.2, he was about 30 years old, but it is evident that he was 17 years old in 2001, and he is not an attesting witness to the registered gift deed. The evidence of PW.2 does not support the plaintiff’s case regarding the execution of the registered gift deed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 15. The plaintiff has not produced a registered gift deed. On the other hand, the defendants have produced a registered gift deed, marked as Ex.D4. On the other hand, defendant No.5 was examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. He has deposed that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of defendant Nos.1 to 8, and no partition was effected amongst defendant Nos.1 to 8. To establish that there was a partition amongst the defendants, the defendants have produced the certified copy of the partition deed, marked as Ex.D3. Ex.D3 discloses that the partition was effected amongst defendant Nos.1 to 8 and the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of one of the brother of defendant No.8. Further, defendant No.8 i.e., husband of the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.48/2011, challenging Ex.D3. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.06.2016. Defendant No.8, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.48/2011, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.113/2016, on the file of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 I Additional District Judge, Kolar. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.01.2020. In the said suit, it is held that the trial Court has recorded a finding that defendant No.8 failed to prove that the defendants continue to be joint family members as on the date of the suit and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. Further, it was held that the parties had acted upon the registered partition deed dated 03.06.2003 and that the defendant was not entitled to share the suit schedule properties. 16. From the perusal of the registered partition deed, it discloses that defendant No.8 was not the owner of the suit schedule properties, and he had no right to execute the registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Registered gift deed executed by defendant No.2, is without having right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court, considering the material on record, held that defendant No.8 had no right to gift the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff had not acquired - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 any right, title, or interest over the suit schedule properties by virtues of said registered gift deed, and has rightly dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court, on re-assessment of the oral and the documentary evidence, has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties were acquired by defendant No.8 and he had a right to transfer the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff has not derived any title under a registered gift deed. The first Appellate Court was right in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, I concur with the impugned judgments. 17. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9700 RSA No. 1152 of 2020 ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. SD/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS