- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAMATHI W/O M VENKATARAMANA MAYYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHINAGARA, SHRILAKSHMI KRIPA, HOUSE NO.1-160. KALPANE, PANITHOTA, SHANTHINAGARA, KODIMBADY POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK , ] D K -574325. 2. SRI L ANANTHA AITHALA S/O L PARAMESHWARA AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.152,BLD-93, 1ST FLOOR, K H B COLONYM, KST III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 060. 3. SMT L VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O V KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.660, DURGA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, D BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010. 4. SRI KRISHNA AITHAL L S/O L PARAMESHWARA AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 R/AT BAZAR HOUSE, THEKKAR VILLAGE AND POST, VIA UPPINANGADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 241. 5. SMT L PARVATHI W/O MADANA GOPALA PURANIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT VERABADRESHWARA NILAYA, HOUSE NO.9, 2ND CROSS, MAYUR NAGAR, ANANDA NAGARA ROAD, HUBLI - 560 024. 6. YAJNESHWARA AITHAL S/O L PARAMESHWARA AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT MIG 13, K H B COLONY, KUKNJATHABAIL POST, MANGALURU-575 015. 7. SMT INDUMATHI L B W/O N N SRIDHARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.496, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.93, KENGERI SATALITE TOWN, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, BENGALURU-560 060. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K SHIVARAMA RAO S/O K ANANTHAYYA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT ANANDA NIVAS, BEHIND NATARAJ THEATER, IDDYA VILLAGE, POST SURATHKAL, MANGALURU-575014 …RESPONDENT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.41/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,MANGALURU, D.K. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2018 PASSED IN OS No.353/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K.TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent in view of the fact that similarly placed plaintiffs' suit in O.S.No.355/2006 came to be dismissed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.42/2018 and further on reconsideration of the factual aspect, dismissed the said suit in RSA No.1593/2022. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: In respect of following immovable properties, a transfer deed was sought to be declared as invalid document. The description of the properties are culled out hereunder for ready reference and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule properties: Non Agricultural Immovable property held on mulageni right formerly situated in No.49 Surathkal Village of Mangaluru Taluk and now coming within newly formed Katipalla Village of Mangaluru Taluk within City Corporation and within Mangaluru Taluk Sub-Registration District and comprised in: Old S. No. & SD No. New S. No. & S.D. No. Extent A-C Which Portion 265-1A (Part) of Surathkal Village 2-1A (Part) of Katipalla Village 0.03 Middle 4. The contention of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that K. Ananthayya was the owner of the suit schedule properties, who purchased those properties in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 the name of his wife Smt. Laxmiamma, who has registered the sale deed dated 16.17.1971. Said Ananthayya died intestate on 15.03.1987 and properties of Ananthayya devolved on his wife Smt. Lakshmiamma and their children namely, Smt. Kaveramma and Sri.K. Venkat Rao. 5. Among them, K. Venkat Rao filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.576/1988 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangaluru. Among them, defendant No.1, who is the brother of Venkat Rao, namely, K. Shivarama Rao took the responsibility to defend the claim of Smt. Laxmiamma as he was a practicing Advocate. 6. It is further alleged in the plaint that in the year 1985, Laxmiamma, on account of her old age was not in a position to attend her day to day activities and had lost the worldly knowledge and was dependent on defendant No.1 - Shivarama Rao. Taking advantage of precarious health conditions, said Shivarama Rao said to have created a document, namely, transfer deed and got the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 suit property onto his name, which was called in question in the suit before the Trial Court. 7. Learned Judge after entertaining the written statement and after holding the trial, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Laxmiamma, defendant No.1 - Shivarama Rao, clandestinely obtained the transfer deed, which is the subject matter of the suit taking advantage of the precarious health condition of Laxmiamma. 8. Dismissal of the suit was called in question before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.41/2018. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. 10. Therefore, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of the law: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 "GROUNDS The Judgment and Decrees under challenge are opposed to law, facts and evidence on record. The Judgment and Decrees under Appeal are perverse, capricious and illegal, which are required to be set-aside. The Trial and First Appellate Courts have failed to draw proper inferences from the admitted and proved facts and those drawn are erroneous. The Judgment and decrees of the Trial and First Appellate Courts is based on erroneous assumption and presumption contrary to the pleading and evidence on record. The finding on Issue No.1 by the Trial Court is erroneous as the same is without appreciation of the documents Ex..P-1 Moolageni Transfer Deed dated.24.01.1998 which being got executed from the grand-mother of the PW-1 (mother of Defendant) during the pendency of the suit in OS No.576/1988 similar to Ex.P-1 Release Deed dated.03.12.1997 in OS No.352/2006 got executed by the Defendant in his favour from the mother of the Plaintiffs No.2 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 to 8/sister of the Defendant during the pendency of suit in OS No.576/1988, without notice to the Plaintiffs and the executant of Ex.P-1, the Trial Court has assumed that as the said transfer deed was produced in OS No.576/1988 as Ex.P-83, the same must be in the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, which is erroneous as the Plaintiffs were neither a party to the said document nor in the said suit, as such, mere registration of document as per Sec.17 of the Registration Act cannot act as a notice to Plaintiffs when admittedly the Plaintiffs and Smt. Kaveramma and Smt. Laxmiamma the mother of the Defendant reposed absolute trust on the Defendant. The Trial Court has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the very Defendant has not disclosed in earlier suit OS No.576/1988 about the acquisition of 1/4th right under the alleged Transfer deed dated.24.01.1998 got executed from Smt.Laxmiamma either by filing Addl. Written statement or in his examination in chief which suit was disposed off on 30.11.2002 and later when RA No.4/2003 was filed by the Plaintiff therein, the Defendant cleverly got filed a Memo dated.02.03.2005 through the Counsel so as to declare that his sister Smt. Kaveramma had expired on 30.01.2005 leaving behind a Release - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 deed dated.03.12.1997, as such, the Defendant has concealed the material fact and mere marking Ex.P-81 in the said suit, and the sald deed of transfer was marked as Ex.P-83, the Court could not have come to the conclusion that the same is not fatal to the case of the Defendant, when the Plaintiffs are not the parties to the said earlier suit. The Trial Court has erred in law assuming that marking of Ex.P-1 Transfer Deed as Ex.P-83 in OS No.576/1988 gains much. Importance for the reason that at the time of marking such document Smt.Laxmiamma was alive and she was represented by separate Advocate and she died on 08.01.2004 after about five years of sald transfer deed, in view of the simple reason that all the acts like engaging the Counsel, taking defense in the said suit etc., all being looked after by the very Defendant as the Plaintiffs and Smt. Kaveriamma and also Smt. Laxmiamma reposed trust on him, which trust, faith and confidence being taken undue advantage by him, besides, the Defendant himself a practicing Advocate which speaks volumes and dominating in the family. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that though PW-1 specifically stated that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 only the Defendant who being an Advocate was instructing Advocate on behalf of Kaveriamma and Smt. Laxmiamma, while admitting the fact that Smt.Kaveriamma and Smt. Laxmiamma were represented by a separate Advocates, burden shifted on the Defendant to prove that it was the said Smt. Kaveriamma and Smt. Laxmiamma themselves instructing their respective Advocates by summoning their Advocate or getting them In the absence of such exercise, examined as witnesses. disbelieving the case of the Plaintiffs as stated by PW-1 by the Trial Court is unsustainable. The Trial Court has erred in assuming that as the as the Defendant is the son of Smt. Laxmiamma, it is quite improbable that a son influencing the will of the mother and at the most he had persuaded the mother. On the other hand, the Trial Court by misreading the evidence of PW-1 failed to appreciate the fact that the material time the mother was residing with the Defendant and no other person was there to influence her and he being her son practicing Advocate and when another son filed the said suit for partition, Smt. Laxmiamma and the Defendant herein being co-defendants obviously - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 join together to defend the claim but engaging separate counsel to avoid allegation of collusion. The Trial Court has erred in law in not accepting the fact that neither Smt. Laxmiamma nor Smt. Kaveramma or her husband and Plaintiffs were engaged the services and instructed of Counsel personally except trusted the Defendant to defend her case in OS No.576/1988 and it was the Defendant himself engaged the services of Counsel and at his instruction only written statement was prepared and filed therein. Further the Trial Court has erroneously proceed to observe that Ex.P-17 is the memo filed by the Counsel for Smt. Laxmiamma adopting the written statement of 1st Defendant in OS No.576/1988, as such, it cannot be said that the Defendant has influenced the will of Smt.Laxmiamma is incorrect as Ex.P- 17 is not the adoption memo filed on behalf of Smt. Laxmiamma, which is sufficient to hold that the Trial Court confused itself while appreciating the pleading and evidence on record. The Trial Court has erred in law assuming that as the Defendant has proved passing of consideration of Rs.13,500/- and Rs.65,000/- by examining DW-2 the Bank Manager with ref. to Ex.D-6 and D-7, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 Transfer Deed is valid and lawful besides, the value of her 1/4th share even if inadequate is not a fatal. The Trial Court has erroneously proceeded to observe that though the factum of Transfer Deed dated 24.01.1998 was not pleaded by the Defendant in OS No.576/1988, but marked as Ex.P-83 in the said suit is not fatal to the case of the Defendant, in view of the fact that the suit OS No.353/2006 is filed not only by the children of Smt.Kaveramma but also the son in law Sri L. Parameshwara Aithal who was not aware about the execution of Transfer Deed at all. The Trial Court has erred in law observing that the admission of DW-1 in his cross examination are only stray admissions, which cannot be override the Ex.P-1 regd. Transfer Deed as the credibility ought to have been given on such admissions of DW-1 as he was not a layman or a person stranger to the Court but he a practicing Advocate on whom his sister Smt. Kaveramma and mother Smt.Laxmiamma reposed trust, which he has misused to get the document executed and to gain her share on the property. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 The Trial Court has erred in law holding that in view of finding on Issue No.1, Issue No.2 does not survive for consideration which is erroneous and opposed to Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact based on the evidence of DW-1 that there was a fiduciary relationship between the mother Smt.Laxmiamma and son the Defendant. The Trial Court has falled to appreciate the fact that when the daughter and son in law and also grand-children of the executant of Ex.P- 1 Smt.Laxmiamma were all available, the Defendant would have got one among them as witness to the said Ex.P-1 to avoid any suspicious circumstances and doubt in the mind of the family members and not making family members as witness to the said Ex.P-1 and non- examination of witnesses or scribe of said document Ex.P-1, is fatal to the defense set up by the Defendant and more probable to the case of the Plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court has erred in not re-appreciating the pleading and evidence on record and on other hand, it travelled only on the defense raised in the written statement and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 denial of the suggestion by DW-1 in his cross examination. The First Appellate Court has erroneously proceeded to hold that nothing was prevented Smt. Laxmiamma to express the material aspect of undue influence in executing Ex.P-1 Transfer Deed infavour of the Defendant, in view of the fact that admittedly she had faith on him and claimed share by paying court fee while filing written statement in OS No.576/1988 and also trusted the Defendant as her daughter and grand children were also living and studied with at his residence, etc., besides she was not studied as admitted by the Defendant and there was no occasion for her to disbelieve him and doubt his conduct. Even the First Appellate Court has filed to appreciate the fact that the 1st Plaintiff being the son in law and her daughter Smt.Kaveramma were neither present nor a witness to the Ex.P-1 Transfer Deed and even the execution of Ex.P-1 was not brought to their notice also and therefore, the son in law was also one of the Plaintiffs in the suit. The finding of the First Appellate Court that as the Ex.P-1 Transfer Deed was executed on 24.01.1998 whereas, Smt. Laxmiamma died on 08.01.2004 and she never raised objections with - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 respect to Ex.P-1 for more than five years would strengthen the defense of Defendant in view of Sec.19-A of Contract Act which provides that an agreement obtained by undue influence, such agreement is voidable at the option to the party whose consent was obtained, is erroneous in view of the fact that the executant Smt.Laxmiamma was never given to understand that she executed Transfer Deed transferring her right, especially when she had her daughter, son in law, grand children, being the Plaintiffs very much available and there was no occasion to transfer her right when she also claimed share in the said suit filed by her another son and therefore, application of Sec. 19-A of Contract Act to the case on hand by the First Appellate Court is erroneous. The First Appellate Court has not taken any pain to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, 1908 except reiterating the finding of the Trial Court. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW (1) Whether the Trial Court has justified in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiffs ignoring the clear admissions of DW-1 as to the cordial relationship with and faith reposed by his mother Smt.Laxmiamma proving his fiduciary capacity - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 which resulted in getting the Ex.P-1 Transfer Deed executed by the Defendant ? (ii) Whether the Trial Court has erred in law holding that Smt. Laxmiamma had executed Ex.P- 1 Transfer Deed with free consent infavour of the Defendant and not under any undue influence especially when the daughter, son in law and grand children of the executant Smt. Laxmiamma were very much available but not a party witness to the said Ex.P-1? (iii) Whether the Trial Court has erred in law holding that execution of Ex.P-1 by Smt.Laxmiamma does not suffer from any undue influence as pleaded by the Plaintiffs in the absence of examining attesting witnesses especially when the family members of the executant were not the witnesses to the said document Ex.P-17 (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court has justified in confirming the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court without re-appreciating the pleading and evidence on record as required under Order 41 Rule 34 of CPC, 1908 except reiterating the finding of the Trial Court ? - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 (v) Whether the Judgment and Decrees of the Trial and First Courts suffer from misreading of pleading and evidence of the parties ? 11. Sri V. R. Prasanna, learned counsel for the appellants, re-iterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contented that admittedly K. Shivarama Rao, one of the sons of Ananthayya and Laxmiamma, taking advantage of fragile health contition of Laxmiamma, in her last days, created the transfer deed, whereby the suit property got transferred onto his name in the guise of looking after her. 12. The said aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by both the Courts, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 13. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 14. On such perusal of the material on record, this Court is crystal clear that the suit property were in the exclusive name of Laxmiamma as the title deeds are in the name of Laxmiamma. 15. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that it is the property which was purchased by Ananthayya in the name of Laxmiamma and therefore, she was only the name lender to the suit property and did not possess any independent right in respect of the suit property. 16. However, to establish the said fact that Laxmiamma was only a name lender, no material evidence is placed on record. Moreover, in the partition suit filed by one of the sons, namely Venkat Rao in O.S.No.576/1988, there is already a finding recorded and therefore, the transfer deed executed by Laxmiammain favour of the K. Shivarama Rao cannot be held to be invalid by accepting the contentions of the plaintiffs and the same has been directly rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38489 RSA No. 1584 of 2022 17. As such, this Court does not find such any grounds whatsoever muchless good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration. Accordingly, following order:- Appeal is meritless and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46