Conveyances of immovable property valued above Rs.100 must be through registered instruments; unregistered relinquishments are ineffective for title transfer.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25^th July 2018, passed in O.S. No.125 of 2012 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short “the trial Court”), which decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent, granting a 1/10^th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and a 1/5^th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. This was confirmed and modified by the judgment and order dated 15^th March 2024, passed in R.A. No.112/2018 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bagalkot (for short “the First Appellate Court”), granting equal shares to the parties.

2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties, contending that she is the granddaughter of the propositus Siddappa, who had three sons namely (i) Ramappa, (ii) Kudlappa, and (iii) Sharanappa. That during the lifetime of the propositus, Siddapa, there was a partition in which the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of his eldest son Ramappa as per M.E. No.1617. The said Ramappa passed away on 30.09.1991, while his wife, Mallawwa predeceased him leaving them behind their legal heirs namely Sangawwa (plaintiff), Gourawwa, Gangawwa, Siddappa (defendant No.1) and Ramawwa (defendant No.3). The two daughters, Gourawwa and Gangawwa are no more.

3. That the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. That upon the demise of their father Ramappa in 1991, names of his legal heirs were entered into the record of rights as per M.E. No.2298 with respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.53 and 172. The land bearing Sy.No.172 had fallen to the share of deceased Sharanappa, the third son of Siddappa. During his lifetime, Ramappa allegedly submitted a varadhi on 15.07.1985 to the Village Accountant regarding land in R.S. No.40/2B, purportedly relinquishing his rights in favour of his grandson, defendant No.2, leading to an entry in M.E. No.755. That the said Varadhi was without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. She further contended that no partition had taken place amongst the plaintiff and defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit for partition.

4. Defendant Nos.1, 2, and 4 to 9 appeared through their respective counsel. Defendant Nos.3 and 11 were placed exparte. Defendant No.10 remained absent. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 also filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.5 to 9 by filing a memo.

5. It is the case of defendant No.2 that the propositus had three sons, namely (i) Ramappa, (ii) Kudleppa, and (iii) Sharanappa. It is contended that there was a partition amongst the said three sons of Siddappa in which suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff Ramappa. Claim of suit schedule properties being ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants is denied. He also denies that after the demise of Ramappa, the names of all his legal heirs were mutated in the record of rights for the land bearing Sy.Nos.53 and 172 as per M.E. No.2298. He specifically denies that Sy.No.172 fell to the share of the deceased Sharanappa. However, he admits that during the lifetime of the deceased Ramappa, the land bearing Sy.No.40/2B was gifted to him, though he was a minor at that time. All other averments made in the plaint are denied by defendant No.2. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the suit.

6. Defendant No.4