P Kumara v. Netravathamma

Judgment.

 The Courts below have failed to consider that the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant was void as rightful owners are not the sellers of the property and therefore the purchaser did not get any valid title.

 The Courts ought to have considered and applied the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.438/2008 in which findings on the extent of right conferred on 1st defendant under settlement deed dated 17.08.1953 is given. When it is held that 1st defendant was not having right to transfer, the

Courts below could not have overlooked the order which was binding of them. Hence, the Courts below have committed serious error of law by not following the judgment in RFA 438/2008.

 The findings of the Court below that the suit is barred by the provisions of 0.2 R.2 of CPC is unsustainable. To apply this principle the suit must be filed by same parties based on same cause of action the relief and property must also be the same in the suits. In the absence of this, the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the suit on such ground.

 The findings as to limitation is also not sustainable. The cause of action shown in the OS arose on disposal of RFA and the dates shown about cause of action was not disputed. Further, defendant No.1 had not seriously urged the point of limitation with reference to any dates.

 Findings on adverse possession is also not sustainable in law. A purchaser of a property claiming ownership on the basis of a sale deed cannot setup plea of adverse possession. Moreover, adverse possession is to be proved in accordance with law and the party claiming such rights i.e. Defendant No.2 has failed to prove it in accordance with law.

 The reasoning of the first Appellate Court to answer the points formulated in the appeal are unsustainable legally as well as factually. The order of the Appellate Court is vitiated, illegal and liable to be set aside.

 It is submitted for above and such other grounds to be urged finding on Issue Nos.1 to 6 are erroneous and unsustainable. Similarly findings on issue Nos. 7 to 10 are also unsustainable."

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

¶1"Whether findings recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA 438/2008 on interpreting the settlement deed executed by late Sri. Rachappa Gowda on 17.08.1953 by holding that section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act has no application and that the said settlement deed conferred only limited right in favour of Smt.Nethravathamma defendant No.1 under whom V Ganapathi defendant No. 2 claimed is not binding on him?

¶2Whether the findings of the Hon'ble High Court that the settlement deed executed by late Sri.Rachappa Gowda in favour of Smt. Nethravathamma did not confer any absolute rights on her to transfer the property as it was a case falling under section 14(2) of the Hindu Seccession Act, 1956, is not binding on the

purchaser -defendant No. 2 only because he was not a party in OS No. 74/2000?

¶3When the decision/judgment in RFA 438/2008 that the settlement deed dt. 17.08.1953 was not executed in lieu of any pre-existing right of Nethravathamma applies to all properties included in the settlement deed dt. 17.08.1953? Were the Courts below legally justified in not applying the decision in RFA 438/2008 to the case on hand ?

¶4Whether the judgment and decree under appeal are sustainable in law for not following binding decision of the High Court in RFA 438/208, for reasons stated therein?

¶5Were the Courts below justified in holdings that suit was barred by time, without considering that the cause of action had arisen after disposal of RFA 438/2008 on 17.08.2014?

¶6Were the Courts below justified in holding that Defendant No.2 had perfected his title by adverse possession ignoring that he was claiming as purchaser ?"

¶12Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that, when there is a specific

averment in the settlement deed made by the grandfather of the plaintiff to the effect that the first defendant and her mother would only get the life interest in respect of the suit property, the said right did not become the absolute right as is contemplated under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and thus, sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

¶13Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment.

¶14Having heard the arguments of both sides, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which reads as under: "14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.—

(1)Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.—In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after

her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property."

¶15On careful reading of the above provisions of law, it is crystal clear that whenever a property is given in lieu of maintenance, that property will become the absolute property of the Hindu woman and therefore first defendant had the competence to sell the same in favour of the second defendant.

¶16Further, judgment that has been placed on record on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and relied upon would not be binding on the second defendant is the finding recorded by the Trial Judge as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.

¶17This Court does not find any ground whatsoever muchless good grounds to interfere with those findings, as admittedly, second defendant is not a party to the said proceedings.

¶18Taking note of the above factual aspects of the matter, the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the sale deed executed by first defendant in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of the limited right of life interest, did not fructify into absolute right and thus the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is ab initio void is rightly negated by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.

¶19Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in any one of the substantial questions of law to admit the appeal for further consideration.

¶20Accordingly, the following: ORDER

(i) Admission declined.

(ii) Appeal dismissed.

(iii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, are consigned to record.

Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42400( RSA(No.(148(of(2020( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010547812019( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(10 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(V(SRISHANANDA( REGULAR(SECOND(APPEAL(No.148(OF(2020((DEC)( BETWEEN:(( ( , P,KUMARA, S/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS,, OCC,:,AGRICULTURIST, R/O,SEEGEKOPPA, GANAKANAKOPPA,VILLAGE,, KASABA,HOBLI, HOSANAGARA,TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT-577418, …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR,,ADVOCATE), AND:( ( 1., NETRAVATHAMMA, W/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, Digitally AGED,ABOUT,79,YEARS,,signedtiby R/O,SEEGA,KOPPA,,GANAKANAKOPPA,VILLAGE,MALATESH KASABA,HOBLI,K0C HOSANAGARA,TALUK-577,418,Location: ,HIGH COURT0OF SINCE,DEAD,BY,HER,LR'S, KARNATAKA , 1(a), SHIVASHANKAR, S/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, SINCE,DEAD,BY,HIS,LR'S,, , 1(a)(a), SMT.KAMALAMMA, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS, W/O,LATE,SHIVASHANKAR, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42400( RSA(No.(148(of(2020( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010547812019( ( ( 1(a)(b), SMT.GEETHA, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS, D/O,LATE,SHIVASHANKAR, , 1(a)(c), SMT.MANJULA, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS, D/O,LATE,SHIVASHANKAR, , 1(a)(a),to,1(a)(c),ARE, R/O,M.GUDDEKOPPA,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI, HOSANAGARA,TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT,–,577,418, , 1(b), SRI,OMAKESHA, AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS, S/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, R/O,HOSANAGARA,ROAD, BEHIND,ANEJNEYA,TEMPLE, HOSANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT,–,577,418, , 1(c), , SRI,P.S.NAGARAJ, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS, S/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, SEEGAKOPPA, GANGAKOPPA,VILLAGE, HOSANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT,–,577,418, , 1(d), SRI,EERESHA, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, S/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, S/O,SEEGAKOPPA, GANGAKOPPA,VILLAGE, HOSANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT,–,577,418, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42400( RSA(No.(148(of(2020( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010547812019( ( ( 1(e), SMT.KUSAMA.P, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, D/O,LATE,PUTTASWAMY,GOWDA, W/O,SRI,SOMASHEKAR, R/O,ATHODI,VILLAGE, HONNESARA,POST, ANATHAPURA,HOBLI, SAGARA,TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT,–,577,412, , 2., V,GANAPATHI, S/O,VEERABHADRAPPA,GOWDA, MAJOR, R/O,HOSAMANE,,PUNAJE,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI,, HOSANAGAR,TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT-577418, , …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,H.R.NARAYANA,RAO,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1(d,AND,e);, VIDE, ORDER, DATED, 15.07.2026,, AS, PER, POSTAL, TRACK, REPORT,R1(b),,R1(c),AND,R1a(a,to,c),ARE,SERVED), SRI, UMESH, MOOLIMANI, FOR, SRI, S.V.PRAKASH,, ADVOCATES, FOR,R2), , , THIS, RSA, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 100, OF, CIVIL, PROCEDURE, CODE,, 1908, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE,DATED,30.10.2019,PASSED,IN,RA,NO,10012/2018,ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, V, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,,SHIVAMOGGA,(SITTING,AT,SAGAR),DISMISSING,THE, APPEAL, AND, CONFIRMING, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 29.06.2018, PASSED, IN, OS, NO.22/2016, ON,THE, FILE, OF,THE,ADDITIONAL,SENIOR,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,JMFC,,SAGAR., , 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 P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Umesh Moolimani for Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. Plaintiff's Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S No.22/2016 by the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2018 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, confirmed in R.A No.10012/2018 dated 30.10.2019 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are as under: 4.1 A suit for the relief of declaration and possession came to be filed on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, in O.S No.22/2016 in respect of the following immovable property, hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'. "Coconut garden in dry land measuring