Registered sale deed is binding and valid under Hindu Law for bona fide purchasers, even when contested by coparceners unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, in O.S.No.18/2010, thereby, the suit filed for declaration, partition and separate possession is dismissed.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 8 constitute a Hindu undivided joint family. The suit properties are ancestral properties. It is stated in the plaint with reference to genealogy annexed to the plaint that one Rannappa is the original propositus and he has two sons namely Yallappa and Sidramappa. Yallappa has eight children who are defendants No.1 to 8. Sidramappa has no issues. Therefore, it is contended that Sidramappa has taken defendant No.1 in adoption, thus, defendant No.1 is claiming to be adopted son of Sidramappa. The plaintiffs are wife and children of defendant No.1.

3. When this being the fact, all the defendants No.1 to 8 have sold the suit property, which is coparcenary property, in favour of defendant No.9 through a registered sale deed. It is contended that defendant No.9 is not a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs’ share. Therefore, prays for partition of 5/6^th share in the suit schedule property and besides claiming declaration that the said sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 8 dated 25.02.2009 is not binding on the plaintiffs share. Thus filed a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession by pleading the above facts.

4. Upon issuance of summons to defendants No.1 to 9, defendants No.1 and 3 to 9 received summons and have engaged an advocate but did not file written statement and have not contested the suit. Defendant No.2 though received summons remained exparte. Therefore, defendants No.1 to 8 have not contested the suit. The defendant No.9 alone has filed the written statement denying the plaint averments.

5. It is pleadings of defendant No.9 to the effect that he has confirmed and satisfied himself that defendants No.1 to 8 are successors of Yallappa and having joint property and verified all the records and upon enquiry in the presence of elders and then defendant No.9 had purchased the suit property from defendants No.1 to 8 through a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2009 after payment of entire sale consideration amount to defendants No.1 to 8. Thus, defendants No.1 to 8 upon their own will and wish collectively have executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.9. Thus sold the property to defendant No.9. Accordingly in the revenue records the name of defendant No.9 was mutated. When this being the fact, the plaintiffs never objected this sale transaction at any point of time. The plaintiffs have also consented for the same. The plaintiffs have never raised any objection before revenue authorities after sale of the land to defendant No.9 objecting the sale transaction. Therefore, taken pleading that the suit filed by the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 8 is a suit collusive in nature just to deprive the legitimate rights of defendant No.9, who has become lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed. Thus, prays to dismiss the suit.

6. Upon pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the sale deed executed by the Defendant No.1 to 8 in favour of Defendant No.9 in respect of suit lands on 25.02.2009 is illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs?

2. Whether the Plaintiffs further prove that suit land is joint family ancestral property of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 as contended in the pl