- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5497 OF 2009 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. ISHWARAMMA W/O. AGASAR KRISTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2. MINOR LAXMI D/O. AGASAR KRISTAPPA, AGE: 17 YEARS. 3. MINOR RAMESH S/O. AGASAR KRISTAPPA, AGE: 09 YEARS. 4. MINOR ERAMMA D/O. AGASAR KRISTAPPA, AGE: 06 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUDDATANUR VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583120, (APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE THE MINORS, APPELLANT NO.1 IS THE MOTHER AS NATURAL GURADIAN) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AGASARA VENKOBAPPA S/O. ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. YELLAPPA S/O. KURUBAR KALASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF MUDDATANUR VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583120. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 SERVED; NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2009 PASSED BY THE PRIL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM BELLARY, IN R.A.NO.99/2008 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) SIRUGUPPA IN O.S.NO.106/2006 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER AGRUMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.99/2008 dated 22.04.2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Bellary1, as well as the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.106/2006 dated 25.06.2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Siraguppa2. By the said judgments, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and possession was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 2. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 1 Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the First Appellate Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 3. For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and possession, declaring that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. One Agasar Kristappa is the husband of plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and son of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 had filed an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Siruguppa. The Land Tribunal, Siruguppa, granted occupancy rights as per Ex.P2 in favour of defendant No.1. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that grant of land was enure to the benefit of the joint family consisting of Agasar Kristappa and defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed a family settlement deed/partition deed, bequeathing the entire suit schedule property in favour of Agasar Kristappa. Consequently, upon the death of Agasar Kristappa, the plaintiffs, by way of inheritance, have become the owners of the suit property. When this being the fact, defendant No.1 had no authority or competency to sell the suit schedule land to the extent of 01 acre out of 02 acres 20 guntas. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration and possession. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 6. It is the case of defendants that defendant No.2 filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs by stating that there is no valid conveyance. 7. Defendant No.2 has filed written statement by taking pleadings that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land, and has sold the suit schedule land through registered Sale Deed dated 30.07.2002. Further, grant of land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas is an inheritable benefit to the joint family. Thus, it enures to the benefit of defendant No.1 and Agasar Kristappa. As well, defendant No.1 was having half share in the suit schedule land, therefore had executed Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 to the extent of 01 acre only. Therefore, defendant No.2 is the bonafide purchaser, hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the reason that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership over the suit schedule land under the final settlement deed/partition deed dated 08.08.1999. It is held that the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is valid. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, holding - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 that though Ex.P1 is described as settlement deed, but virtually it is relinquishment deed. Since Ex.P1-relinquishment deed is unregistered, it does not convey any right, title or interest in favour of Agasar Kristappa. Therefore, the land granted by land Tribunal continued to remain joint family property, in which, defendant No.1 held half share. Accordingly, defendant No.1 was competent to execute Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 9. Upon the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 10. This Court, on 12.02.2014, while admitting the appeal, has framed the following substantial question of law: i. Whether the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed a serious error in ignoring the fact that, the conferment of tenancy right in favour of the first defendant is enure to the benefit of joint family and therefore, judgment of the Courts below are perverse and illegal? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 11. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants submitted that there was a partition in the joint family, and in the said partition, the suit schedule land to the extent of 02 acres 20 guntas fell to the share of Agasar Kristappa, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. Since the entire land was allotted to the share of Agasar Kristappa, he became absolute owner of the said extent. It was further contended that defendant No.1, despite having no any right or ownership over the suit schedule property, executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2. 12. Both the Courts have erroneously held that the said document to be the relinquishment deed. But upon perusing the recitals involved in the case, it is a partition deed but not a relinquishment deed. By virtue of the partition, Agasar Kristappa has become owner of the entire extent of 02 acres 20 guntas of suit schedule land. Consequently, the Sale Deed made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is without authority or competency and does not convey any valid title. Therefore, the plaintiffs have title over the suit schedule land. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs prays to decree the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 suit by declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule land. 13. Notice was issued to the respondents; however they remained absent. Accordingly, there is no representation on behalf of respondents. 14. Ex.P2 is the order passed by the land Tribunal, Siruguppa, dated 25.09.1980, under which occupancy rights were granted in favour of defendant No.1. Thus, defendant No.1 became owner of the suit schedule land. This fact is not disputed by defendant No.2. It is also not in dispute that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4, namely Agasar Kristappa, is the son of defendant No.1. In view of these admitted facts, the question that arises for consideration is whether defendant No.1 had exclusive right to alienate the suit schedule land. 15. Defendant No.2 has contended in the pleadings and evidence that Agasar Kristappa, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4, had left the village and house long ago and that his whereabouts are not known. On that basis, it is contended that the plaintiffs have failed to establish whether Agasar Kristappa is alive or residing elsewhere. Defendant No.2 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule land to the extent of 01 acre from defendant No.1, after verifying that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the property. It is also contended that defendant No.2 has developed the land by spending a considerable amount. 16. However, the fact to be considered is that once defendant No.1 and his son became joint owners of the suit schedule land, and the land would enure to the benefit of the joint family, the competency of defendant No.1 alone to alienate the property becomes questionable. The plaintiffs rely on Ex.P1, documents. It is the case of plaintiffs that on 08.08.1999 partition took place in the family, and the land bearing Sy.No.422A to the extent of 02 acres 20 guntas was allotted to Agasar Kristappa, thereby making him exclusive owner of the said land. If Agasar Kristappa became exclusive owner of the property on 08.08.1999, then the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is questionable. Both the Courts have held that Ex.P1 is a relinquishment deed requiring compulsory registration and that since it is unregistered, there was no valid conveyance in favour of Agasar Kristappa. Hence, it was held that the property continued to be jointly owned by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 defendant No.1 and Agasar Kristappa, and that defendant No.1 had half share out of 02 acres 20 guntas, which entitled him to sell 01 acre of land in favour of defendant No.2. 17. With these observations, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court interpreted Ex.P1 as relinquishment deed. Undoubtedly, a relinquishment deed requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs contended that Ex.P1 is not a relinquishment deed, but a memorandum of partition. 18. Therefore, upon considering the recitals in Ex.P1, it is evident that the document clearly records a partition of properties between defendant No.1 and Agasar Kristappa, or in other words, it is a family settlement deed. The words used in the said Ex.P1 document is “D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¥Á®Ä «¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÉãÉAzÀgÉ F ¢ªÀ¸À £À£ÀUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ PÀȵÀÖ¥Àà¤UÀÆ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ EgÀ®Ä ¸Àj ¨ÁgÀzÀ PÁgÀt £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀA¥Á¢¹zÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÉqÀÆå¯Á¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß FvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀéAvÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ PÉÆlÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀ®Ä ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” In the first paragraph and also in the second paragraph at last line, the wordings used are “JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÀÄÛ ¸ÉAmïì ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ F ¢£À¢AzÀ zÁ£À «PÀæAiÀiÁ¢ ¸ÀªÀĸÀÛ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ½UÉ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÁgÀ¸ÀQèÁzsÀågÀÄ. »UÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£À¹ì¤AzÀ §gɬĹPÉÆlÖ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¥Á®Ä «¨sÁUÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸À».” 19. Thus, Ex.P1 is a record or memorandum evidencing a completed partition and does not itself effect transfer of rights. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have failed to correctly appreciate the true matter of Ex.P1 document. By virtue of this partition, the granted land fell to the exclusive share of Agasar Kristappa, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. 20. Once defendant No.1 lost his authority and ownership over the suit schedule land by virtue of Ex.P1, he had no competency to execute registered Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is invalid, as it was executed without authority or title. Consequently, there is no valid conveyance of 01 acre of land in favour of defendant No.2. In this view of the matter, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed error. Hence, defendant No.2 cannot be stated to be a bonafide purchaser. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 21. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the ‘affirmative’, holding that the confirmed tenancy rights granted in favour of defendant No.1 would enure to the benefit of the joint family, and furthermore, by virtue of Ex.P1- memorandum of partition, the entire property was allotted to the share of Agasar Kristappa. Thus, the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, unauthorized and without competency. The suit is therefore liable to be decreed by declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule land. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 22. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed; b) The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.99/2008 dated 22.04.2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Ballari, as well as the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.106/2006 dated 25.06.2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Siraguppa, are set aside; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:194 RSA No. 5497 of 2009 c) The registered Sale Deed dated 30.07.2002 is declared null and void, and consequently, the plaintiffs are declared as owners of the suit schedule land; d) Defendant No.2 is directed to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule land to the plaintiffs; e) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31