- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100299 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100291 OF 2024 IN RFA NO.100299 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1. VIJAYENDRA S/O. VINAYAKAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2. SMT. HEMALATA W/O. VINAYAKAPPA GONDKAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 3. KRISHNAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA GONDKAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. YASHWANTHAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS WORK, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2. SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O. PRAKASH GONDKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.02 16:36:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 3. SMT. KAVITA W/O. SURESH KOPARDE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MOODALAGI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590004. 4. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. RANGANNA KOPARDE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RABAKAVI, TALUKA: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-594801. 5. SMT. PURNIMA W/O. CHANDRAKANTH LALAGE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANDHI CHOWK, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.37/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN RFA NO.100291 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1. KAVITA W/O. SURESH KOPARDE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDALAGI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590004. 2. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. RANGANNA KOPARDE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RABAKAVI, TALUKA: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-597301. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 3. POORNIMA W/O. CHANDRAKANTH LALAGE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANDHI CHOWK, DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYANDRA S/O. VINAYAKAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2. HEMALATA W/O. VINAYAKAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 3. KRISHNAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 4. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. YASHWANTHAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 5. PRABHAVATI W/O. PRAKASH GONDKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOVARAD ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.37/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned appeal in RFA No.100299/2019 is filed by defendants No.1 to 3 assailing the Judgement and Decree rendered in O.S.No.37/2015, seeking relief of partition and separate possession is dismissed insofar as schedule-B properties is concerned. This dismissal of Decree is challenged by defendants No.1 to 3 in RFA.No. 100299/2019. Connected appeal is filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in RFA.No.100291/2024. 2. In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, there is an inordinate delay of 1144 days and no delay application has been filed till this date. Today the matter is listed indicating that despite granting sufficient time, plaintiffs have failed to comply the office objections. Now the matter is listed for the 5th time reporting non-compliance of office objections. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 4. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to take cognizance of the family tree, which is as under: Hanumanthappa (dead) =Smt.Devikavva (dead) (Def.No.6) Vinayakappa Krishanappa Prabhakar Lalitamma (dead) (def.3) =Smt.Hemalata (def.2) Kavita Vijayalakshami Purnima Vijayendra (Plf.1) (Plf.2) (Plf.3) (Plf.4) 5. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the daughters of defendant No.2, Hemalata, and one Vinayakappa. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit asserting that the properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the "suit schedule properties") are joint family properties. The plaintiffs have contended that being the daughters of Vinayakappa, they are entitled to a rightful share in the said properties. Specifically, they claim that their father, Vinayakappa, held a half share in the suit schedule properties and that they are each entitled to a 1/5th - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 share in that half share. The plaintiffs have further alleged that defendants No.1 to 3, who are closely related and have joint interest in the suit schedule properties, have failed to recognize the plaintiffs’ rights and have deliberately excluded them. Upon learning that defendants No.1 to 3 had executed a sale of the Schedule-A properties in favour of defendant No.4, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. They have challenged the said transaction as fraudulent, asserting that the sale was brought about through misrepresentation and undue influence, and that it was executed without legal necessity or the plaintiffs' consent, thereby rendering it void and not binding on their legitimate share in the property. 6. Defendant No.1, upon receipt of summons, entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement. He categorically denied the allegations made in the plaint and opposed the plaintiffs' claim. Defendant No.1 specifically contended that the registered Sale Deed dated 10.06.2003 executed in favour of defendant No.4 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. He stated that his father, Vinayakappa, was suffering from various ailments and was in a weakened - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 physical and mental state at the relevant time. Defendant No.1 alleged that defendant No.4, under the pretext of executing a Lease Deed, deceitfully secured a Sale Deed from Vinayakappa. He further asserted that the said Sale Deed was obtained by exercising undue influence and taking advantage of Vinayakappa’s ill health, and as such, the transaction was not only fraudulent but also illegal and unenforceable. Consequently, it is contended that the said sale does not bind the shares of the plaintiffs or those of defendants No.1 to 3, who are all legal heirs and coparceners of the joint family. 7. Defendant No.4, the purchaser of the Schedule-A properties, also filed a written statement, vehemently denying all the allegations raised in the plaint. While he did not dispute that the suit schedule properties were ancestral in nature and belonged to the family comprising the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3, he claimed that a valid partition had already taken place within the family. According to him, pursuant to the said partition, the Schedule-A properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.3 and the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 plaintiffs’ father, Vinayakappa. Defendant No.4 further contended that the sale of the said properties was necessitated by urgent financial constraints faced by both Vinayakappa and defendant No.3. It was under these compelling financial circumstances that the Schedule-A properties were allegedly sold to him for a sale consideration of Rs.1,92,000/- through a registered Sale Deed dated 10.06.2003. Defendant No.4 asserted that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule-A properties pursuant to the said transaction. Additionally, in the alternative, he contended that the plaintiffs have neither sought declaratory relief with respect to the Sale Deed nor any consequential relief, and that the suit, having been filed after a lapse of more than 12 years, is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 8. To substantiate their respective contentions, both the plaintiffs and the defendants, including defendant No.4, led oral and documentary evidence. Upon consideration of the entire material placed on record, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and adjudicated upon them. In particular, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 while dealing with issue No.2, the Trial Court answered the same in the affirmative, holding that the sale of the Schedule-A properties by Vinayakappa and defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 under the registered Sale Deed dated 10.06.2003 was effected for legal necessity of the joint family. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the transaction was vitiated by fraud or that it was not for the benefit of the family. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the sale was valid and binding not only on the vendors but also on the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit was dismissed insofar as it pertained to the Schedule-A properties. However, the suit was partly decreed with respect to the ‘B’ schedule property, which is not under challenge in the present appeals. 9. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiffs and defendants. Perused the records. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the plaint, written statement filed by defendant No.1 and written statement filed by defendant No.4/purchaser. We - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 have also given our anxious consideration to the admissions elicited in cross-examination of PW.1 as well as defendant No.3, who is examined as DW.6. 11. The following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.2 , that defendants No.4 and 5 have successfully established that the suit Schedule ‘A’ properties were sold by Vinayakappa (father of the plaintiffs) and defendant No.3-Krishnappa for legal necessity of the joint family is vitiated by perversity, misappreciation of evidence, or suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in appellate jurisdiction? ii) Whether the plaintiffs are legally entitled to maintain a suit challenging the alienation of Schedule ‘A’ properties effected by their father in the year 2003, and consequently, whether such alienation is protected under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thereby validating the sale as binding on the plaintiffs' coparcenary interest? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 FINDING ON POINT NO.(i):- 12. Before we delve in examining the claim of plaintiffs in the present suit and the counter raised by defendant No.4, thereby seeking dismissal of suit insofar as schedule ‘A’ properties are concerned, We are inclined to examine the pleadings in the plaint insofar as sale deed executed by plaintiffs’ father Vinayayakappa and defendant No.3-Krishnappa.The relevant portion of para No.7 is culled out, which reads as under: “The defendants No.1 to 3 stated no such sale deed has been executed in the name of Raghavendra S/o Yashwantappa Gondkar, but the land given on Lavani basis and the above said Raghavendra took us to sub-registrar office and got the Lavani Patra and even if any sale deed the above said Raghavendra cheated them by practicing fraud and misrepresentation and further stated in pursuance of the alleged deeds no possession is handed over and also no consideration was passed in their favour. Under the facts and circumstances of the case on enquiry the plaintiffs came to know the defendant No:4 Raghavendra practiced fraud and misrepresentation upon the defendant No:3 and his brother Vinayakappa obtained the sale deed by saying as Lavani Patra without any sale consideration as alleged in the recitals of the sale deed and also no possession was handed over in favour of Raghavendra the defendant No:4 and also created another mutation entry in favour of defendant No:5, Prabhavati the wife of his brother Prakash with a malafide intention to grab the properties of the plaintiffs and defendants No:1 to 3 and hence the sale deed alleged to have obtained by the defendant No:4 by practicing fraud and misrepresentation is illegal null and void not binding upon the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share in the share of their father Vinayakappa by metes and bounds with costs, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 as the alleged created sale deed, the mutation entries are illegal null and void not binding upon the plaintiffs, as there is no efficacious remedy except the remedy of filing this suit.” 13. We are also inclined to take cognizance of the admissions elicited in examination-in-chief of defendant No.3, who is examined as DW.6 regarding ill-health of plaintiffs’ father Vinayakappa and financial constraints to which plaintiffs’ family were confronted with. Para No.4 would be relevant, the same is extracted, which reads as under: “4] £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÀÄ wêÀævÀgÀºÀzÀ PÁ¬Ä¯É¬ÄAzÀ §¼À®ÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ aPÀvÉìUÁV ºÀtzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ¥Àà PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ 4 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á®ªÁV ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀzÁUÀ 4 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£À aQvÉìUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦àzÀÄÝ ºÀtzÀ ¨sÀzÀævÉAiÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV K£ÁzÀgÉÆAzÀÄ PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀ®Ä w½¹zÀÝ®èzÉà DvÀ£É MAzÀÄ vÉÆÃjUÁtÂPÉAiÀÄ ¯ÁªÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §gÀzÀÄ PÉÆqÀ° CAvÁ w½¹zÀÝ®èzÉà vÁ£Éà CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁågÀ ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¤ÃªÀÅ §AzÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀgÁ¬ÄvÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄäw¹zÀÄÝ EvÀÄÛ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 4 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ¥Àà£À£ÀÄß vÁ®ÆPÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÁ£Éà vÀAiÀiÁåj¹zÀ PÁUÀzÀPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄUÉ K£ÉÆAzÀÄ ºÉüÀzÉà £À«ÄäAzÀ ¸À» vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÀwÛgÀzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀ£ÀÄ EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀA© CzÀPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CzÀÄ C®èzÉà £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÀtÄÚ PÁt¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è 4 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ J°è ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÆà C°è ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ CAzÀgÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è »¸Éìà PÉüÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ 4 ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ K£ÉÆÃAzÀÄ w½¸ÀzÉà SÉÆÃlÖ ¥ÉÇÃPÀ¼ï Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæ ºÀÄnÖ¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzsÀgÀ£ÁUÀ°Ã zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ ºÀaÑgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ DzsÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÁUÀ°Ã 4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ Rjâ gÀPÀA:1,92,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÁUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ¢®è. 4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ¤UÉ ¯ÁªÀt ¥ÀvÀæ CAvÁ ºÉý £À«ÄäAzÀ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.” - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 14. Upon a careful and comprehensive examination of the pleadings, particularly the averments made in the plaint, which have been analyzed and extracted supra and when such pleadings are read in conjunction with the evidence adduced during trial, including the admissions elicited during the cross-examination of defendant No.3 (examined as DW.6), who is a co-executant of the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.4, it becomes evident that defendant No.4 has successfully discharged the burden of proving that the alienation of the Schedule ‘A’ properties was made for the legal necessity of the joint family. This conclusion is not merely drawn from the documentary evidence produced by defendant No.4 but is further fortified by the admissions made by defendant No.3 during cross-examination, which reinforce the case of the defendant no.4/purchaser. Additionally, we cannot overlook the surrounding circumstances under which the suit has been instituted. The plaintiffs, being the daughters of late Vinayakappa, have challenged a registered transaction entered into not only by their father but also - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 by his brother (defendant No.3) and their mother, Hemalata. The Sale Deed in question, dated 10.06.2003, was executed by all three individuals forming the core of the family unit, thereby indicating the joint nature and collective intent behind the sale. 15. It is relevant to note that the suit came to be filed only in January 2015, nearly twelve years after the execution of the said Sale Deed. While the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, in a coordinated effort, have attempted to assail the validity of the transaction by alleging fraud and misrepresentation said to have been committed by defendant No.4, their case lacks evidentiary support. Apart from making bare assertions in the plaint and in the written statement of defendant No.1, there is a conspicuous absence of any credible or tangible material on record to substantiate the claim that the transaction was brought about by deceit or undue influence. It is also emerging from records that defendant No.3, who jointly executed the Sale Deed along with Vinayakappa and who - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 was present during the impugned transaction, has neither sought cancellation of the Sale Deed nor pursued any independent claim challenging its legality. His conduct throughout the proceedings indicates tacit acquiescence, if not outright support for the plaintiffs' cause, yet his silence and failure to independently seek redress weakens the plaintiffs' allegations. These factors collectively indicate that the present suit is an afterthought, a belated attempt by the plaintiffs and their relatives to unsettle a valid transaction which was acted upon and concluded more than a decade earlier for a lawful consideration of Rs.1,92,000/-. 16. The allegations made in both the plaint and the written statement of defendant No.1 were serious in nature, involving claims of fraud and misrepresentation. Consequently, the onus was squarely upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 to prove such allegations with cogent evidence. However, they have failed to discharge this burden. One significant and determinative aspect that - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 further undermines their case is the admitted fact , as acknowledged by both defendant No.4 and defendant No.5 in their deposition that defendant No.4 has been in continuous, actual, and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule ‘A’ properties ever since the execution of the Sale Deed in 2003. This undisputed fact is crucial. If indeed the possession of the suit property was transferred immediately upon execution of the Sale Deed and remained with the Defendant no.4 for over a decade without challenge or interruption, it strongly militates against the plaintiffs' version. The filing of the suit after such an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly 12 years renders the claim hopelessly barred by limitation. There is no sufficient cause shown for condonation of this delay nor any plea of continuous cause of action which could salvage the suit from the bar of limitation. 17. Defendant No.4 has successfully rebutted the case of the plaintiffs by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence and by relying on crucial - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 admissions made by defendant No.3 during cross- examination. These admissions directly support the case that the transaction was necessitated by legitimate family needs. The plea of legal necessity has, therefore, been adequately substantiated. In light of the totality of evidence and surrounding circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court while answering re-cast Issue No.2. The finding is grounded in evidence, legally sustainable, and does not call for interference by this appellate Court. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the ‘negative’. FINDING ON POINT NO.(ii):- 18. The present suit is filed by daughters of Vinayakappa. The father of plaintiffs’ have sold suit schedule ‘A’ properties along with defendant No.3/DW.6 under registered sale deed dated 10.06.2003 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,92,000/-. Section 6 (5) of the Act, clearly saves all those transactions, which are made prior to 20.12.2004. Admittedly, the sale deed is of the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 year 2003. Therefore, the plaintiffs being daughters of Vinayakappa, could not have maintained a suit in 2015, as the alienation in context of plaintiffs, is clearly saved in terms of proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act, which clearly protects all alienations made on or before 20.12.2004. Therefore, plaintiffs even otherwise, could not have maintained a suit. 19. The records reveal that this suit is set-up by defendants No.1 and 3. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any indulgence in the connected appeal filed by plaintiffs in RFA No.100291/2024. This appeal is filed with an inordinate delay of 1144 days without any application. This appeal is filed on 18.06.2024. Though this Court has granted at least five opportunities to the plaintiffs to rectify the defective of appeal memo, no steps are taken to file delay application. This Court has consistently held that belated appeal, which is not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act R/w order XLI Rule 3A of CPC, is not at all an appeal in the eyes of law. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6707-DB RFA No. 100299 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100291 of 2024 Since, there is inordinate delay and no application is filed and having regard to the fact that alienation is clearly saved under the proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act, the appeal is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of merits as well as on limitation. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the ‘affirmative’. 20. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK para 1 to 7 AM 8 to end Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17