IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Sri R. Venkataswamy Reddy, S/o Late B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shantha Abraham, W/o. Dr. K. Abraham Jacob – Respondent
R.F.A.No.1135 of 2013 C/W R.F.A.No.116 of 2013
Decided on : 27-01-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of appeals against common decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership and inheritance of the joint family property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendants' claims against the plaintiffs' assertions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13) |
| 4. court's findings based on the evidence presented. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. re-examination of documentary evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. assessment of the credibility of witnesses and documents. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. estoppel and its implications on the plaintiffs' claims. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. analysis of the power of attorney's legality and implications. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. factors leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. significance of the properties’ status post-sale. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 11. duties of the actors in the appeals, decoupled from the joint family concepts. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. final conclusion and adverse findings on the plaintiffs’ credibility. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 13. court's order based on the evaluation of all submissions. (Para 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
R.F.A.No.1135/2013 and R.F.A.No.116/2013 are filed challenging the common judgment and decree dated 24.9.2012 passed in O.S.No.7498/1992 and O.S.No.1611/1994 respectively, on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH28).
2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1611/1994 had filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.1.1989 executed in favour of defendant No.8 Sri Parabjoth Singh and the registered sale deed dated 14.6.1988 executed in favour of defendant No.11 Smt. Shantha Abraham by late Sri B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy through his Power of Attorney Sri A. Jayarama Reddy in respect of portions of plaint schedule ‘A’ property are not binding on them. Further to grant permanent injunction in respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property in portion of site Nos.1 and 2 described in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property against defendant No.8.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1611/1994 are that one Sri Venkataswamy Reddy had two sons, namely Sri B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy and Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Sri B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy and plaintiff No.3 is the son of Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy. Sri Venkataswamy Reddy passed away prior to 1956. After his death, his two sons and the plaintiffs constituted an undivided Hindu Joint family. Sri B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy was the kartha of the undivided Hindu Family. The said family was having considerable landed property. The kartha of the family Sri B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy had no other income except the joint family landed property. The joint family was owning a land bearing Survey No.119 of Horamavu Village, which is morefully described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint. Till today the same is in joint possession of the plaintiffs.
4. Sri B.V. Ramaswamy Reddy had to borrow funds for the purpose of meeting of joint family necessities. Instead of executing mortgage deeds, the kartha of the family used to execute nominal sale deeds in favour of the creditors. These documents were also known as ‘Nambike Kraya’. Despite execution of such nominal sale deeds, the lands continued in possession of undivided joint Hindu family. The said land came to be transferred from person to person at the direction of kartha and ultimately at a particular point of time, the sale deed in respect of the said land stood in the name of one Sri V. C. Rajarathnam. In the year 1971, the joint family became affluent and it was in a position to repay the said loans that had to be paid to Sri V. C. Rajarathnam. Accordingly, the kartha had paid the same amount of Sri V. C. Rajarathnam in respect of sale deed dated 15.9.1971. Hence, Sri V. C. Rajarathnam had reconveyed the land in favour of kartha. The joint family had also obtained loan from Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., for the purpose of development of agricultural land under a mortgage deed dated 27.9.1976. The land was mortgaged by both brot
ARALAPPA AND ETC., VS. JAGANNATH AND ORS.
BANWARI LAL AND OTHERS VS. SUKHDARSHAN DAYAL
BOARD OF REVENUE, MADRAS, REFERRING AUTHORITY VS. ANNAMALAI AND CO. (PVT.) LTD., AND ANOTHER
K.M.MUNIREDDY VS. B.K.LAKSHMAIAH
Mohammed @ Podiya vs Assistant Commissioner
MALLAPPA GIRIMALLAPPA BETGERI AND OTHERS VS. R.YELLAPPAGOUDA PATIL AND OTHERS
NOOKALA SETHARAMAIAH VS. KOTAIAH NAIDU AND OTHERS
PROVASH CHANDRA DALUI AND ANOTHER VS. BISWANATH BANERJEE AND ANOTHER
SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS
PACKIYAM AMMAL AND OTHERS VS. PATTU AMMAL AND OTHERS
S.V.NARAYANASWAMY VS. SMT.SAVITHRAMMA
THE ALLAHABAD DISTRICT COOPERATIVE LTD., VS. HANUMAN DUTT TEWARI
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.