- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100489 OF 2024 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SHRI. SACHIN S/O. MALLAPPA SAVADI, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O; KANAKUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI P.R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANTOSH MALLAPPA SAVADI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O C/O SHANKARAPPA CHANNAPPA ASUTI, AT BHAGAVATI, TQ.& DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. DILSHADBEGUM W/O BABASAHEB BHAGAVAN ALIAS BENAL AGED. 62 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER R/O SHAIKH COMPOUND, NEAR AIR STATION, DHARWAD-580001. 3. SRI. BABASAHEB S/O IMAMSAB BHAGAVAN ALIAS BENAL AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS OCC PENSIONER, R/O SHAIKH COMPUND NEAR AIR, DHARWAD TQ AND DIST DHARWAD 580001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JDUGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN R.S.NO.48/2022 AND THE Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 JUDGEMNT AND DECREE 02.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRICNIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.816/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY DECREE THE SUIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 in R.A.No.48/2022 passed by the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2022 in O.S. No.816/2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the children of Mallappa Savadi. Defendant No.2 and 3 are the purchasers of undivided share of the suit schedule property from the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1- Mallappa Savadi, sold the said property in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 as per the registered sale deed dated 21.09.2000 and it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was minor at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 the time of the sale deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said sale has been made without taking into consideration the interest of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.816/2012 seeking share in the suit schedule property and also stated that the sale deed executed by his father-Mallappa in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 dated 21.09.2000 is not binding on the plaintiff. 2.1. On service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed written statements. Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement supporting the contention of the plaintiff and took up a contention that the sale deed made by his father in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 is null and void and without interest of the family and accordingly sought for decree of the suit. 2.2. Defendants No.2 and 3 have filed their written statement stating that the suit schedule property has been sold on 21.09.2000 for valuable consideration and the defendants No.2 and 3 are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 has sold the property for welfare of the family and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 2.3. The Trail Court based on the pleadings of the parties, formulated issues for its consideration. 2.4. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked 8 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked 13 documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D13. 2.5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 02.08.2022 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 48/2022 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was contested by the defendants. 2.6. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.816/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 3. I have heard the submissions of Sri. P. R. Bentur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. J.S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3- caveator. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the suit schedule property is joint family property of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their father (Mallappa) and the said property has been illegally sold by their father in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 as per the registered sale deed dated 21.09.2000 and at the time of the sale, the plaintiff was minor and accordingly, the interest of the plaintiff was not taken into consideration. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned order. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the relationship between the parties, the genealogical tree of the plaintiff is extracted, which reads as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 Mallappa Propositus died Santosh Sachin Defendant No.1 Plaintiff 7. Perusal of the genealogical tree would indicate that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the children of Mallappa Savadi and the properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The said property was sold by the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as per the registered sale deed dated 21.09.2000 in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the recitals in the sale deed dated 21.09.2000 would make it clear that the sale was made for the purpose of legal necessity of the joint family and as such, the finding recorded by the Trial Court at Paragraph No.19 to 21 makes it clear that the sale was made for the purpose of family necessity and therefore, both the Courts below, after assessing the material on record, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out a case for interference. It is also to be noted that as per Ex.D13, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3163 RSA No. 100489 of 2024 the date of birth of the plaintiff was 22.06.1986 and therefore, the plaintiff attained the age of majority during 2004, since the suit has not been filed within the limitation period of three years after attaining the majority, both the Courts below have rightly negatived the contention of the plaintiff and accordingly, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself as the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of the substantial question of law required under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, The appeal is dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT.GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14