The validity of a sale deed in the context of family necessity and the application of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 17/11/2022, passed in R.A.No.18/2021, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and it is their claim that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition. It is also their further case that the sale deed dtd. 5/3/2003 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on their shares in the suit schedule properties and hence they are entitled for the relief of partition. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are father and brother of the plaintiffs, respectively and defendant No.3 is the purchaser of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.3 took the defence that he is a bonafide purchaser of item No.1 of the property and also took the contention that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.2 as D.W.1 and defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 5/3/2003 in favour of defendant No.3 is a valid sale deed and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs is not accepted. The Trial Court answered issue No.4 in the affirmative and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties i.e., item Nos.2 and 3 properties and they are entitled for separate possession and declined to grant any relief in respect of item Nos.1, 4 and 5 properties.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.18/2021 by the plaintiffs. The main contention urged by the appellants before the First Appellate Court is that the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and further contend that item No.1 has been granted by the Government in favour of the father of defendant No.1 under kuluvadike and defendant No.3 has got exercised the sale deed in his favour fraudulently without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiffs, in which these appellants are having equal share. The very sale made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 is against law and they are entitled for share in each of the properties. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal formulated the points whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that sale deed dated 05. 03.2003 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs, whether the appellants have proved that item No.1 has been alienated by defendant Nos.1 and 2 for family legal necessity in favour of defendant No.3, whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit with respect to item Nos.1, 4 and 5 and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified in holding that the sale deed dtd. 5/3/2003 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs and answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and point No.4 in the negative and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the second appeal is filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the