- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1555 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NATESH, S/O SRI. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 2. SMT. VASANTHA, D/O SRI BASAVARAJU. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 3. SMT. REKHA, D/O SRI. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 4. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O SRI BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O ERAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571130 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SIDDAPPA, S/O MOOLE HATTI SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 1(a) RESIDING AT ERAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571130. SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE SIDDAPPA. 1(b) SRI. GURU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA. 1(c) SRI. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA. RESPONDENTS NO.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDING AT ERAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571130. 2. SRI. B.K.PRABHUDEVARAJE URS, S/O LATE KRISHNA URS, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570023. …RESPONDENTS (R1(a), R1(b), R1(c) AND R2 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2022 PASSED IN R.A.No.52/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, husband of plaintiff No.4 and brother of defendant No.2. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with their mother have sold the property in favour of defendant No.3 vide sale deed dated 21.02.1994 in respect of item No.1 of the suit properties and the same not binds the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to put them in possession of 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties and grant such other reliefs. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that they are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right in the suit schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 properties, since defendant No.3 had purchased the property on 21.02.1994 and there cannot be any question of granting of share in favour of the plaintiffs, as claimed. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P23. On the other hand, defendant No.3 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, granted the relief in respect of item No.2 of the suit property is concerned. In respect of item No.1 is concerned, comes to the conclusion that sale deed was executed on 21.02.1994 and suit was filed in the year 2012 and as on the date of execution of sale deed, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were minors. But as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, the suit has to be filed within 3 years when ward attained the majority. Now in the cause title, the age of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 is shown as 33, 35 and 30 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 years respectively. But suit is filed after 3 years of attaining the age of majority. In paragraph No.17, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that as per Article 58 of Limitation Act, to obtain any other declaration, the suit has to be filed within 3 years, when the right to sue first accrues. So in this case, the sale deed in respect of item No.1 was executed in the year 1994. But the suit was filed in the year 2012. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the suit is barred by time. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that suit item No.1 property was allotted to defendant No.1 in the oral partition. Hence, the said property becomes separate property of defendant No.1. Though it is mentioned as self-acquired property, the same is the separate property of defendant No.1. Even though sale deed was executed by Javanamma, defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and deceased Shivanna, but only on that ground, it cannot be held that the suit item No.1 is joint family property. Hence, in respect of item No.1 property, the plaintiffs cannot claim any share and dismissed the suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit properties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 5. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree of the Trial Court in respect of item No.1 of property is concerned, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points that whether the appellants/plaintiffs have made out justifiable grounds to allow the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, whether dismissal of suit in respect of item No.1 is based on sound and proper reasoning and whether the finding of the Trial Court requires interference of the Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the negative and answered point No.2 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that well reasons are given by the Trial Court while dismissing the suit in respect of item No.1 is concerned. The First Appellate Court in detail discussed the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.20, it is held that the Trial Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. It is specifically contended in the plaint that suit item No.1 property originally belongs to Moole Hatti Sannappa, who died leaving behind his wife and three children. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 plaintiffs are the children and wife of the first son of Moole Hatti Sannappa. In other words, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are the grandchildren of the said Sannappa and plaintiff No.4 is the daughter-in-law of the said Sannappa. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1, who is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4 died during the suit. If according to the plaintiffs the property originally belongs to Moole Hatti Sannappa and he died, as rightly argued by defendant No.3, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to the case on hand. Section 8 of the Act speaks of general rule of succession in case of males. 6. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.23 taken note of that defendant No.3 contended that since the property is alienated much prior to 2005, Hindu Succession Amendment Act, the alienations made prior to 09.09.2005 are saved. Hence, even assuming that the property in dispute is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, they are not entitled for share in the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the children of Moole Hatti Sannappa and his wife by name Javanamma has alienated the property on 21.02.1994. The defendant Nos.1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 and 2 are also the executants of the sale deed. The certified copy of the sale deed at Ex.P.5 would go to show that all the children of deceased Sannappa and his wife Javanamma has executed the sale deed wherein, it also appears that possession of the suit schedule property is delivered on the date of the sale deed. When the possession was parted with in the year 1994, limitation attracts. Thus, the First Appellate Court having re- assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in not framing proper issues and in not casting burden on respondent No.2/defendant No.3 to prove the legal necessity for the alleged sale deed dated 21.02.1994. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that it is not the specific case that the property was sold for legal necessity. The learned counsel would contend that both the Courts committed an error while interpreting Sections 6 and 8 of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 Hindu Succession Act. The learned counsel would contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. The learned counsel would submit that the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed of the year 1994. Hence, the matter requires re- consideration. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it is very clear that the property came to the father in a partition along with their brothers and the property was sold by the father as well as their uncles and the same is not disputed by the plaintiffs. It is also not in dispute that the sale was made in the year 1994. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were minors at the time of sale. The Trial Court taken note of the same in paragraph No.16, when the relief is sought for partition and separate possession and when the property was sold in the year 1994, possession was delivered. But the learned counsel submits that possession is with the plaintiffs. If that is the case, if possession is with the plaintiffs and they came to know about the same only recently, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 no need of seeking for the relief of separate possession. While seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, relief is also sought that sale deed of the year 1994 is not binding on them. The plaintiffs/appellants are not disputing the fact that the property was sold on 21.02.1994 and sale deed was executed by Javanamma and her three sons viz., Basavaraju, Shivanna and Siddappa. The suit was filed in the year 2012 i.e., after 18 years. The Trial Court has also taken note of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, that, to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, the suit has to be filed within three years when ward attaining the majority. The Trial Court also taken note of the age of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 mentioned in the plaint, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the age of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 is shown as 33, 35 and 30 years respectively. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that the suit is not filed within three years of attaining the age of majority. The Trial Court in paragraph No.17 also taken note of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, wherein also discussion was made that when declaration is sought that sale deed is not binding, suit has to be filed within three years, when the right to sue first accrues. In the case on hand, the sale deed was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 executed in the year 1994 but, the suit was filed in the year 2012. Hence, the suit is clearly barred by time. The very suit filed by the plaintiffs lacks on the ground of limitation. 10. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court had confusion with regard to attracting of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. No doubt, it is the provision of law that, in case if it is a coparcenery property, Section 6 of the Act attracts. If it is a case of male Hindu person dies, Section 8 of the Act attracts. But in the case on hand, when the suit is filed after lapse of 18 years, that too after the limitation period, whether Section 6 attracts or 8 attracts are immaterial. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the sale is not for any legal necessity. Whether it is for legal necessity or not also to be taken note of. When the suit is filed after 18 years of the sale, it is nothing but an attempt is made to make a wrongful gain filing a suit after lapse of 18 years. When the sale deed was executed in the year 1994, family lost the entire extent of the property of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52163 RSA No. 1555 of 2022 father as well as their uncles, who had joined in selling the property in the year 1994 itself with the grandmother. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that they are in joint possession also cannot be accepted when the sale was made in the year 1994. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have rightly taken note of both question of fact and question of law in filing the suit after lapse of 18 years and answered the issue with regard to the limitation is concerned that the suit is barred by limitation. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and to frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/MD