- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100243 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. SHANKRAPPA JIGALUR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGENDRAGADA, TQ: GAJENDRAGAD (RON), DIST: GADAG. 2. SHASHIKALA W/O. YALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALAGANUR, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 3. JAYASHREE W/O. NAGARAJ TALAWAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARLAPUR, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 4. SHOBHA W/O. SHARANAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALAGANUR, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE) YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 AND: 1. BALAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA JIGALUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT (TEACHER), R/O. NAGENDRAGADA, TQ: GAJENDRAGAD (RON), DIST: GADAG, NOW AT GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGALINGESWARA CAMP, POST: TURAVIHAL, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 2. VEERANNA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA ILLUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAREGAL, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS COURT, RON IN O.S.NO.90/2019 AND ALLOT 1/5TH SHARE TO EACH OF THE APPELLANTS IN THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.90/ 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron1 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022 whereby the said suit filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record indicates that the appellants/plaintiffs are the wife and daughters of late Shankrappa Jigalur and the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is his son. It is undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that the aforesaid Shankrappa Jigalur expired in the year 2019 leaving behind his wife i.e., plaintiff No.1/appellant 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 No.1, three daughters i.e., appellants 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and a son i.e., respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to succeed to his share including the suit schedule properties. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 executed two sale agreements both dated 26.04.2014 in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2, who is not a family member and in pursuance of the same, the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 filed two suits in O.S.No.2/2017 and O.S.No.3/2017 against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, which were decreed by the Civil Court in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 against respondent No.1/defendant No.1. It is contended by the appellants/ plaintiffs that their attempt to seek impleadment in the aforesaid two suits was rejected and as such, since the properties were joint family properties, the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties and the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 having denied the legitimate share in the same, the appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 4. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement specifically contending that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was the Karta and Manager of the alleged joint family comprising of the appellants/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/defendant No.1, after the demise of his father in the year 2013. It is contended that the family incurred huge debts for the purpose of medical treatment of his father and due to financial hardship being caused to the parties, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was constrained to execute two sale agreements for legal necessity and benefit of the estate as a Karta and Manager of the joint family and consequently, in view of the decree passed in favour of the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.2/2017 and O.S.No.3/2017, which attained finality, the appellants/plaintiffs did not have any claim, share, right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties and that the same was liable to be dismissed. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, of them and the defendant No.1? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the defendants have denied to given their legitimate share in the suit properties? 3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, he is the bonafide agreement holder of the suit properties? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the reliefs as prayed for? 5. What order of decree? 6. The plaintiff No.4 examined herself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked while respondent No.2/defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D35 were marked on his behalf. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the family of the appellants/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was undergoing severe financial distress and huge amounts of money were being spent for the purpose of medical treatment of the father-Shankrappa Jigalur, who expired in the year 2013 and since the family did not have any source of income for their livelihood, the alienation of the suit schedule properties by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was due to legal necessity and benefit of the estate and since the said sale transactions were perfectly legal, valid and proper, the appellants/plaintiffs were bound by the said transactions, they could not claim share in the suit properties. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs invited our attention to the pleadings and evidence in order to point out that in the absence of any material to establish legal necessity, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs by improper and erroneous appreciation of material on record and that the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in their favour. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 would support the impugned judgment and decree and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 9. The following points arise for our consideration in the present appeal. i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the alienation of the suit schedule property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate, thereby rejecting the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs? ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference of this Court in the present appeal? Reg. Point No.(i) and (ii): 10. Since both the points are interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration. 11. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and that the appellant No.1 is the widow of Shankrappa Jigalur, while appellants 2 to 4 are their daughters and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is the son of the aforesaid late Shankrappa Jigalur, who expired in the year 2013. It is also not in dispute that upon the demise, the parties are members of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 Hindu Undivided Family and there was no partition between the parties and that the properties are the joint family properties. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the appellant No.1 being widow/female heir and appellants 2 to 4, being the daughters/female heirs of late Shankrappa Jigalur, all of them being members of joint family along with respondent No.1/defendant No.1, who is the only male heir, was the Karta/manager of the aforesaid joint family. It is also relevant to state that it is not the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was not the Karta of the joint family. On the other hand, the appellants/plaintiffs have admitted that being the sole surviving male member of the joint family, the defendant No.1 was the Karta/Manager of the joint family and he was looking after the affairs of the properties of the joint family. 12. During the course of his evidence, the respondent No.2/purchaser has produced un-impeached, unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence as DW1 along with documentary evidence at Ex.D1 to Ex.D35, which clearly establish that the alienation made by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was for legal necessity and benefit of the estate and this aspect has been taken into account by the Trial Court, while dismissing the suit by holding as under: “20. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and also documents produced on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 as well as the oral evidence of the PW-1 and DW-1. The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 is not in dispute. The father of defendant No.1 died because of Cancer it is also not in dispute. One more undisputed fact is, the suit properties are joint family properties. It is also not in dispute that, the defendant No.2 had filed two separate suits against the defendant No.1 for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract in regard to the suit properties in O.S.No.2/2017 and O.S.No.3/2017, both the suits came to be decreed with a direction to the defendant No.1 that, he shall execute the Regd. Sale Deeds in favour of the defendant No.2. I have also gone through the Ex.D.19 to Ex.D.27 i.e., the certified copies of the plaints, written statements, depositions in these previous suits. The plaintiffs had filed an application to implead them as the parties in those - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 proceedings, after contest the applications came to be rejected. The PW-1 has deposed in the case on hand that, the appeal was preferred against the said order, but, she has not produced any documents and also PW-1 has admitted the said fact. 21. After going through the cross- examination of PW-1 that, she has admitted clearly that, after the death of propositus Yallappa, and at the time of division of the properties among his sons, the share of the father of the defendant No.1 directly given to the defendant No.1. The father of the PW-1 died in the year 2012, he was under treatment of Cancer at Gadag and also took him to Bengaluru for further treatment. The plaintiffs have not produced any documents in this regard. The defendant No.2 has produced the copies of the Medical documents at Ex.D.16 and 17. The PW-1 has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that, they have pleaded in their plaint that, the defendant No.1 was managing the family affairs, as manager of the joint family. After going through the plaint averments also, it is very clear in para No.8 of the plaint. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 in his arguments. It is further deposed by PW-1 that, “£À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ PÁå£ÀìgÀ aQvÉì ¸À®ÄªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ CqÀZÀuÉAiÀÄ - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 ¸À®ÄªÁV £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ºÀtPÁ¹£À CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ D §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. D PÁgÀtPÁÌV £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 2014 gÀ°è zÁªÁ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ ºÀaÑzÀÝ£ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.” 22. The PW-1 has shown her ignorance in regard to the financial necessity for her father's treatment. At one breath she deposed that, she and her husband took her father for treatment to Gadag and Bengaluru, but, shown her ignorance that, they need financial assistance. She has admitted that, the defendant No.1 had put the properties for sale, because of the financial need for his father's medical treatment. 23. These circumstances is very clear that, the father of the defendant No.1 was under treatment for his Cancer, the defendant No.1 who is/was Kartha of the family and managing the family affairs, and he had proposed to sell the suit properties, the defendant No.2 had agreed to purchase the properties under two different agreements of sale, even he had filed suits also, they came to be decreed. Now, the question arose that, whether the defendant No.1 can alienate the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.2 for financial necessity for medical treatment of his father. Admittedly, the father of the defendant No.1 was under treatment. The defendant No.1 is the only son to his father. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 The plaintiff No.1 is the mother of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the sisters of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is a Teacher in Govt.School. Even he had deposed in his evidence in the previous proceedings regarding the agreements of Sale. His defence was turned down, no appeal have been preferred against the verdict in the previous suit. 24. In this regard I have relied upon a decision reported in Civil Appeal No.7037 of 2021 in Beereddy Dasareatharami Reddy Vs. Manjunath decided very recently on 13.12.2021. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, “ right of the Kartha to execute agreement to sell or Sale Deed of a joint Hindu family property is settled and is beyond cavil vide several judgments of this Court including Sri.Narayan Bal and others Vs. Shridhar Sutar and others wherein it has been held that, a joint Hindu family is capable of acting though its Kartha or adult member of the family in management of joint Hindu family property. It is also held in regard to the Article 241 of Mulla's Hindu law What is legal necessity - The following have been held to be family necessities within the meaning of Article 240; - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 a) payment of Government revenue and of debts which are payable out of the family property; b) maintenance of coparcenrs and of the members of their families; c) marriage expenses of male coparceners, and of the daughters of coparceners; d) performance of the necessary funeral or family ceremonies; e) costs of necessary litigation in recovering or preserving the estate. f) costs of defending the head of the joint family or any other member against a serious criminal charge; g) payment of debts incurred for family business or other necessary purpose. In the case or a manager other than a father, it is not enough to show merely that the debt is a pre-existing debt; The above are not the only indices for concluding as to whether the alienations was indeed for legal necessity, nor can the enumeration of criterion for establishing legal necessity be copious or even predictable. It must therefore depend on the facts or each case. When, therefore, property is sold - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 in order to fulfil tax obligations incurred by a family business, such alienation can be classified as constituting legal necessity”. 26. Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, then in our view, no co-coparcener (son) has a right to challenge the sale made by the karta of his family. The plaintiff being a son was one of the co-co-parceners along with his father Pritam Singh. He had no right to challenge such sale in the light of findings of legal necessity being recorded against him. It was more so when the plaintiff failed to prove by any evidence that there was no legal necessity for sale of the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the defendants to prove the factum of existence of legal necessity was either insufficient or irrelevant or no evidence at all.” 25. In the case on hand also admittedly the father of the defendant No.1 was suffering from Cancer and got treatment and he died in the year 2012. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 is the sole son in his family. Plaintiffs have clearly pleaded regarding the Kartha and Manager of the family by defendant No.1, but, in the cross-examination of PW-1 it is forthcoming that, the plaintiff No.1 is managing the family affairs. Here there is - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 inconsistency between the pleadings and proof. The aforesaid being the legal position, the defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.1. The medical treatment and financial assistance is also one of the legal necessity. Usually, properties can be acquired and if any urgency or necessity occurs, then obviously that property can be alienated by way of Sale or any mode. In the case on hand also the defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the suit properties on behalf of the joint family. Moreover he has not appeared in this case and not said anything. By looking into the facts and circumstances as well as the previous suits and also deposition by defendant No.1 in earlier suits clearly go to show that, the suit is a collusive suit between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have full knowledge regarding this transaction and also PW-1 has categorically admitted in her cross- examination that, for the reason of medical treatment of her father, the defendant No.1 had put the properties in Sale. Moreover, the plaintiffs have sought partition only in the alienated properties, admittedly there are some other properties too the joint family, but, the plaintiffs have cleverly not included those properties. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is aptly applicable to the suit on hand. I have - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 also gone through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2. The principles laid down in this decision are well founded. This is also aptly applicable to the suit on hand. The defendant No.2 has led his evidence as DW-2 as discussed above and he has produced several documents, nothing is got elicited from the mouth of DW-2, which is contrary to his defence. Though he has admitted that, the suit properties are joint family properties. But, already the defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family had agreed to sell the properties in question in favour of the defendant No.2. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the defendant No.2 is the bonafide agreement holder in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have not produced any documents to prove that, the sale agreements had not been executed by the defendant No.1 for medical treatment for the father of PW-1. Moreover, the PW-1 has admitted this fact during her cross- examination. In the light of discussions made supra, though the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the properties are joint family properties, but, already they are agreed to sell in favour of the defendant No.2. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the issue No.2. The defendant No.2 has succeeded in proving the issue No.3 by placing cogent evidence before - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 this Court also. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative. 26. Issue No.4: The plaintiffs have though succeeded in proving the issue No.1 and failed to prove the issue No.2. The properties in dispute are already agreed to sell in favour of the defendant No.2 by way of agreements of sale in favour of the defendant No.2. These are Regd. documents produced at Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.29. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, I answer the issue Nos.4 in the negative.” 13. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court would lead to the following conclusions: i) The appellants and respondent No.1 were members of a Hindu Undivided Family. ii) The suit schedule properties were joint family properties of the appellants and respondent No.1. iii) The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 being the sole surviving male member of the joint family of appellants and respondent No.1, the respondent - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 No.1 was the Karta/Manager of the joint family and was looking after the affairs of the properties etc., after the demise of his father in the year 2013. iv) During the lifetime of Shankrappa Jigalur and even thereafter, apart from the income of the suit schedule properties, the joint family did not have any other source of income for their livelihood. v) The joint family during the lifetime of Shankrappa Jigalur and even thereafter faced great financial hardships and distress and huge amounts of money were necessary for the purpose of medical expenditure, treatment, etc., including Shankrappa Jigalur, who died in the year 2019 due to cancer. vi) The respondent No.1 was constrained to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of respondent No.2 by executing two sale agreements in favour of respondent No.2 in relation to the suit schedule properties. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 vii) The two suits in O.S.No.2/2017 and O.S.No.3/2017 filed by respondent No.2 against the respondent No.1 for specific performance of sale agreements vide Ex.D19 and Ex.D32 were decreed in favour of respondent No.2 against the respondent No.1 vide judgments and decrees at Ex.D19-20 in O.S.No.2/2017 and Ex.D32-33 in O.S.No.3/2017. 14. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establish that the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to conclusion that the alienation of the suit schedule properties by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2, being for legal necessity and benefit of estate, the said alienations were binding upon them and appellants/plaintiffs would not be entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. 15. Upon re-appreciation revaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10546-DB RFA No. 100243 of 2022 appellants/plaintiffs cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity nor can it be said to be capricious, perverse or contrary to the material on record warranting interference of this Court in the present appeal. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Hence, point No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative and point No.(ii) is answered in the negative. 16. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN, CT-MCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5