• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1594 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE BYAYAREDDY, R/O HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.VIJAY KUMAR BHAT, ADV.) AND: SRI NANJUNDA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 1(A) SMT.MUNIYAMMA, W/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED 72 YEARS 1(B) B.RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 2 - 1(C) SRI B.JANARDHANA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 1(D) SRI B.KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY MAJOR 1(E) SRI B.KODANDARAMAREDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 1(F) SMT.JAYAMMA W/O SEETHARAMAREDDY MAJOR, R/AT SAKALAWARA POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 083 1(G) SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O NAGARAJA REDDY MAJOR R/AT MAHATHALINGAPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106 1(H) SMT.PADMAMMA W/O KRISHNA REDDY MAJOR, R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT – 571 511. - 3 - 1(I) SMT.PUSHMAMMA, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY MAJOR, R./AT DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, RAJANAKUNTE HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 562 130 1(J) SMT.INDRAMMA W/O SAMPANGI REDDY, MAJOR, R/AT THIRUPALYA VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 2. SRI KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE BAYYA REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 2(A) SMT. B.MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE B.KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR, R/AT HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. 2(B) SMT.SUGANAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH MAJOR, R/AT HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, - 4 - ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. 2(C) SMT.PRAMILA S/O NARASIMHA REDDY MAJOR, R/AT DODDABEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 571 109 2(D) SMT.BHAGYAMMA, W/O GANGIREDDY, MAJOR, R/AT HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. 2(E) SMT.KOMALA W/O RAMESH REDDY MAJOR, R/AT NO.29, 7 TH CROSS, 18 TH MAIN, NEAR UDUPI GARDEN, BTM 2 ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 76. ...RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 12.08.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.233/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:04.06.2011 PASSED IN - 5 - O.S.NO.908/2006 (OLD CASE NO.O.S.1297/2004) ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC, ANEKAL. THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The appellant is before this Court assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.908/2006 (old case No.1297/2004) who was before the trial Court seeking that he be declared as the owner of the suit schedule properties. 2. The fact that a partition had taken place between the family members in the year 1961 is not in dispute. The fact that the plaintiff was a minor at that point, being aged about 9 years is also the accepted position. The suit schedule properties are among the properties which had been allotted to the share of the plaintiff in the partition deed dated 22.03.1961. In addition to the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff had been allotted 13 other items of properties regarding which there is no dispute in the suit. The suit items / properties are presently owned by the defendants. It is - 6 - in that view the plaintiff claiming that the said items which were also allotted to the share of the plaintiff under the partition deed dated 22.3.1961, be declared his absolute properties as against the same being held by the defendants was before the Court below. 3. The defendants on appearance disputed the claim of the plaintiff. To the extent that the partition deed dated 22.3.1961 was entered into between the family members, it is not disputed. The defendant however, contends that insofar as the suit items / properties are concerned, he had purchased the same in the auction that was conducted on 17.03.1970 and having secured the mutation entries in respect of the same has been in the possession and enjoyment of the properties and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right in respect of the said properties. In that regard, it is contended that since the plaintiff was minor, the father was taking care of the properties. For improving of the properties certain loan had been obtained and in that regard, since the loan had not been discharged, the properties have been brought to auction. In the said auction, the defendants have purchased the same and have - 7 - become the absolute owners of the said properties and plaintiff cannot seek declaration in that regard. 4. Taking note of the rival contentions, the trial Court framed as many as 6 issues initially and 2 additional issues for consideration. 5. One of the issues which had been raised as additional issue was with regard to whether the suit was barred by limitation. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgments passed by the Courts below would contend that the point which is essential for consideration in the instant appeal as substantial question of law is with regard to the conclusion of the Courts below on the point relating to the limitation. 7. It is his case that the Article 110 of Limitation Act would be applicable to the instant case as the date of knowledge of the plaintiff should be taken into consideration while considering whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation as - 8 - provided. In that regard, it is contended that the period of knowledge as pleaded by the plaintiff is during the year 2003 and therefore, the suit filed in the year 2004 is within the period of limitation. 8. Even to consider this aspect of the matter, what is necessary to be noticed is that, the father of the parties had died much earlier to the period when the first defendant had become major. In such situation, the point at which the plaintiff became a major would also have to be considered as the period of knowledge of the plaintiff, since on that day onwards he would start managing the properties. Keeping this in the background, a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would indicate that while taking note of the documents that had been relied on by the parties, a detailed reference has been made to the documents relied on by the defendants which in the present circumstances, would become relevant for the reason that the partition deed dated 22.03.1961 is not in dispute between the parties. - 9 - 9. In that light, the only aspect of the matter which required consideration is, whether the contention of the defendants that the properties which were allotted to the share of the plaintiff had been acquired by the defendants in the manner as had been indicated. To the said extent, the trial Court has referred in detail to the documents at Exs.D.1 to D.69. The said documents include, mutation entries which had been made in favour of the defendants after securing the properties in his name in the auction held on 17.03.1970. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, no sale certificate has been produced. Even if that is so, the documents relating to the revenue entries and the manner of enjoyment of the properties in exclusive terms would also become relevant. Therefore, if this aspect of the matter is kept in view, considering the fact that the plaintiff had attained the age of majority in the year 1978 and even prior to the same, certain properties which had come to the share of the plaintiff under the partition deed dated 22.03.1961 had been sold in the year 1974, 1975 and 1976 and no issues are raised in - 10 - that regard. Therefore, the fact with regard to the details of the items of properties that had been allotted to the share of the plaintiff in the said partition was known to him. Hence, his knowledge of the items of the properties standing in his name would have to be taken into consideration at least as on the date of the plaintiff attaining majority, if not, on the date when his father had died. Hence, if this aspect of the matter is considered, the Courts below have appropriately taken note more particularly, on additional issue No.1 and conclusion is based on the evidence which was available on record. Such appreciation being on the mixed question of law and conclusion being reached based on evidence, I do not find any substantial question of law to be considered in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE nvj .

Load more

  10

Copy Link