The court reaffirmed that prior sales of property before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act are protected and binding, setting aside the trial court’s decree granting shares to plaintiffs in respect of such properties.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 08.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.158/2014 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Appellant is defendant No.9, respondent Nos.1 to 17 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.18 to 27 are the defendants.

4. Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that original propositus was one Yallappa. He had a wife by name, Fakkiravva. They had two sons by name, Yallappa and Hanumantappa. Hanumantappa had six children, namely, defendant Nos.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and daughter Renavva who is dead. The Ramappa defendant No.1 had a wife by name Yallavva i.e., defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 has a daughter by name Bangarevva i.e., defendant No.4. Defendant No.5 has a daughter by name Shantavva i.e., defendant No.6. Defendant No.7 Yankappa had a daughter by name Renavva i.e., plaintiff No.17. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff Nos. 8 to 11 are the children of defendant Nos.3 and 4, plaintiff Nos.12 to 14 are the children of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and defendant Nos.15 and 16 are the children of plaintiff No.17. It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and they are the members of Hindu undivided family and there is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8. Plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect partition. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit for partition and separate possession.

5. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that Sl.No.1 of A-schedule and B-schedule properties are the joint family properties, but the properties in Sl.No.2 of the A-schedule is not the ancestral property. It is contended that said property was granted to defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In the said land either plaintiffs or defendant No.8 have no right and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Defendant Nos.3, 5 and 7 have filed the memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant No.8 filed consent written statement and contended that she is having 1/6^th share in the suit properties. Defendant No.9 being the purchaser has filed written statement contending that the suit is barred by limitation. He further contended that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.138/1A/2 measuring 1 acre and 30 guntas. Defendant No.9 after verifying the relevant documents purchased the suit property. The said land was purchased under registered sale deed dated 10.03.2003. It is contended that neither the plaintiffs nor defendant Nos.1 to 8 have right, title and interest over the said land. It is contended that defendant No.9 is the bonafide purchaser for value without notice. He submits that defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 have sold the property for their legal and family necessity. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Defendant Nos.10 and 11 in their written statement taken up the contention that defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 have sold Sl.No.2 of the schedule property to defendant No.10 for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 03.07.1993 and he is the bonafide purchaser. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed following issues:

ISSUES

1) Whether plaintiffs prove that schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 8