- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1651 OF 2023 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O NARASIMHAIAH @ IYANNA, MAJOR, 50 YEARS, 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, D/O NARASIMHAIAH @ IYANNA, MAJOR, 45 YEARS, 3. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O VENKATACHALAIAH, D/O NARASIMHAIAH @ IYANNA, MAJOR, 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, D/O NARASIMHAIAH @ IYANNA, MAJOR, 43 YEARS, 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O RANGAPPA, D/O NARASIMHAIAH @ IYANNA, MAJOR, 47 YEARS, 6. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O VENKATACHALAIAH, D/O NARASIMHAIAH @ IYANNA, MAJOR, 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 7. SMT. KRISHNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR KOMALA, D/O KRISHNAMMA, MAJOR, 48 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT ADAKAMARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI - 562123, MAGADI TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI DARSHAN PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH @ IYYANNA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS ALREADY ON RECORD SRI KRISHNAPPA, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT ADAKAMARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI – 262 123 MAGADI TALUK 2. SRI N NAVEEN S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, 2ND CROSS, ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 40 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B RAMESH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2023 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.49/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAGADI AND ETC. 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 appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding of both the Courts passed in O.S.No.133/1995 and R.A. No.49/2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court that defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiffs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 are only daughters and successors of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 beginning itself he is having one kind of unsound mind and he was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 addicted to heavy drinks and gambling and he is not managing the joint family properties. Defendant No.2 taking undue advantage of unsound mind of defendant No.1 is trying to create some documents in respect of the suit schedule properties in order to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 is no more and the late Narasimhaiah @ Ayyanna died leaving behind the plaintiffs and Smt. Thimmakka to succeed the ancestral and joint family properties. It is also contended that the father of the plaintiffs – Narasimhaiah @ Ayyanna executed the sale deed dated 20.04.1972 in favour of Smt. Narasamma in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, it is not for joint family necessities. Therefore, the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. After the death of late Narasamma, her legal representatives Doddanarasimhaiah and his sons Narayanappa have sold the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 – Krishnappa under a registered sale deed dated 31.05.1995 without the knowledge of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 plaintiffs, even though the plaintiffs have been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is also contended that defendant No.1 has no manner of right, title or interest and he has not exclusive right to create or alienate any deed in favour of defendant No.2 and more over there is no legal necessity in the family to sell the property. The plaintiffs have came to know this fact very recently and immediately caused legal notice to the defendants and filed the suit. 4. The notice was served on the defendants and the defendants appeared through their respective counsel. Defendant No.1 in his written statement not disputed the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants and denied the plaint averments. He contend that the suit schedule properties were sold to late Narasamma about on 22.04.1972 through registered sale deeds on 22.05.1972 for the purpose the marriage of plaintiffs and to discharge a mortgage debt and to meet the domestic expenses of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 the family. It is also contended that revenue entries are came into existence immediately after the sale and the same were created for the purpose of filing of this false suit. 5. Additional written statement also filed by defendant No.2 contending that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. As per the sale deed, Smt. Narasamma became the absolute owner and in possession of the item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties by getting all the revenue documents changed into her name and her husband along with their son Narayanappa were in possession and enjoyment of the property till the death of Smt. Narasamma in 1986 and after that Sri Doddanarasimhaiah and his son D Narayanappa were in possession and enjoyment of the property till 31.05.1995. Thereafter, they have sold the same in favour of defendant No.2. At the time of purchase of the property, defendant No.2 verified all the title documents of Narasamma along with revenue documents which she has purchased and as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 a bonafide purchaser and the sale deed is a genuine and lawful documents. It is contended that at no point of time, plaintiffs were in physical possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and they have no right to claim any share over the said properties. The plaintiffs with an intention to knock off the suit schedule properties filed the false suit. Legal representatives of defendant No.1 also filed written statement after the death of defendant No.1. 6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged before it framed the issues and additional issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.3 examined as PW1 and also examined two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P17. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined as DW1 and also examined three more witnesses as DW2 to DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D24. The Trial Court having considered both - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue Nos.1, 2 and Additional Issue No.1 as negative in coming to the conclusion that defendant No.2 proves that defendant No.1 had sold item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule property for legal necessity of the family and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that the property was sold for the family necessity and not proved the defence that the husband of the defendant was addicted to bad wises and not having sound state of mind and property was sold and resold in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.49/2021 wherein the First Appellate Court also considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of the document at Ex.D1 and also admission that father has no any source to perform their marriage and the income derived from the agricultural lands is not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 sufficient to maintain such a huge family. Apart from that in the contents of Ex.D1 there are clear recitals that how the lands were sold by the defendant No.1. In page No.1 of Ex.D1, defendant No.1 categorically mentioned that he is intending to sell the suit schedule properties for the family necessity, for maintenance of his family and also for discharge of mortgage loan obtained from Thimmarayappa of Kalluru village and a specific name of a person is mentioned. The Trial Court taken note of recitals of Ex.D1 and the First Appellate Court also taken note of the recitals of the documents particularly, Ex.D1 and D2 are dispensed from proving the due execution. The bad habits nurtured by defendant No.1 is not at all proved by the plaintiffs and the categorical admissions in the cross examination of PW1 are sufficient to hold that defendant No.1 is a dignified person having respect in the society, he has no any source other than the agriculture income, the family was big because he is having seven daughters and a wife. In the year 1972, except plaintiff No.1, none of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 remaining plaintiffs are married. The First Appellate Court taken note of the said fact into consideration and held that once the initial burden is discharged, the onus shifts on the plaintiffs to prove that Ex.D1 is initiated by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. Because they have contended that defendant No.1 was drunkard, in a drunken position the signatures were obtained but nothing is placed on record to prove the said fact. The First Appellate Court also reassessed the material on record and also having taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 wherein in paragraph 15, it is elicited regarding habit of the father is concerned, there is a clear admission and in paragraph 19, discussed the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs. When such material available on record and there is a concurrent finding by both the Courts that the property was sold for legal necessities that too to perform the marriage and to clear the loan of mortgage and also taken note of the recitals of Ex.D1 and hence, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 both the Courts have applied their mind while considering the factual aspects of the case. 8. The counsel for the appellants in his arguments would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating the material on record in a proper perspective and also contend that sale was not made for legal necessities. The counsel also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties but the Trial Court is not justified in holding that defendant No.2 proves that defendant No.1 had sold item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property for the legal necessity of the family. Hence, this Court has to frame the substantial question of law. 9. Having considered the material available on record particularly the recitals of Ex.D1 which was discussed by both the Courts, the question of framing the substantial questions of law does not arise since the fact - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19461 RSA No. 1651 of 2023 finding is given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court taken note of question of fact and question law while re-appreciating the evidence on record. When such being the case, no grounds are made out to frame the substantial questions of law since there is no perversity in the finding of both the Courts and both the Courts have also considered that regarding the bad habits nurtured by defendant No.1 is not at all proved by the plaintiffs. Such being the case, the question of invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN