Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
K. Varahal Reddy, S/o. Surya Reddy, Since Dead By His Lrs.- Smt. K. Vijaylakshmi, (W/o. Late K. Varahala Reddy) - Appellants
Versus
Mallikarjun, S/o. Ramsingappa Bhavikatti and Ors. – Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No.2430 of 2007 (PAR)
Decided On : 09-06-2025
For the Appellants :Sri. Ramesh I. Zirali, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sri. Mahanta Gouda, Advocate, Sri. Avinash Banakar, Advocate.
Joint family properties cannot be alienated in violation of grant terms; proper documentation is essential for ownership claims.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 - Aliens of property in violation of grant terms - Appeal against trial court’s decree affirming plaintiff's entitlement to joint family property. The case concerns alienation of property allocated to a family and contention of binding nature of transactions with respect to grant terms. (Paras 2, 5, 12)
(B) Legal principles of joint family property ownership and violation of grant terms - The trial court concluded properties held as coparceners, thus granting plaintiff a share and invalidating sales executed by the Kartha. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, contending rights over ancestral property, claimed violations by the Kartha who sold land to a stranger. The trial established the properties were joint family holdings.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient documentation to conclude whether the property was sold in violation of grant terms, leading to remand for further evidence.
Issues: The main questions involved ownership and validity of the sale executed by the Kartha and family member's rights as coparceners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to present all documents pertaining to land grants to determine ownership claims and violations accurately.
Result: The appeal is upheld; the prior judgments are set aside, and the matter is remitted for further consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consent for final disposal of appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. joint family property status established. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendant's denial of joint ownership. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. trial court's evidence review and findings. (Para 9) |
| 5. reiteration of trial court's conclusions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. substantial question of law considered. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. the need for adherence to grant conditions and evidence in property disputes. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 8. analysis of grant order discrepancies. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. recognition of missing evidence impact. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. order for fresh consideration of the matter. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.G.S. KAMAL, J.)
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by defendant No.6, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19th April 2007, passed in O.S. No.162/2003 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Gangavathi (for short “the trial Court”), by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property; with further directing to the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the said 1/3rd share by metes and bounds, and also declared that the deed of sale bearing Document No.5800/1999-00, dated 08.03.2000, entitled by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding on the plaintiff.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant - defendant No.6 preferred appeal in R.A. No.8/2007 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Gangavathi (for short “the First Appellate Court”). The First Appellate Court, by its judgment and order dated 16.08.2007, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and they constitute joint family. Defendant No.1 is the Kartha of the family. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 possessed joint family properties, as coparceners. Defendant No.6 is a stranger to the family.
5. Suit Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted by the Government in the year 1982 to the family of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, as landless persons, by regularising their unauthorised occupation in the name of defendant No.1, as he was the senior member of the family. A Saguvali Chit dated 15.10.1982 was issued by the Tahsildar, Gangavathi. Though the grant was made in the name of defendant No.1, the benefit enured to all the family members, and all of them are entitled to an equal share along with defendant No.1. It is further stated that defendant No.1 was addicted to bad vices, and due to his weakness, he sold one acre of land in favour of defendant No.6 in terms of sale deed dated 08.03.2000 for a meager amount of sale consideration. Based on which defendant No.6 got his name mutated in the revenue records. Plaintiff learnt about the said transaction when they received the summons in OS No.5/2002 which was filed by defendant No.6 for relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and their mother. On verification of the records, it was found that defendant No.1 had sold the property item No.1 to defendant No. 6 without the knowledge of other members of the joint family. Hence, the suit for partition.
6. Defendant No.6 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement contending that the suit property was the self acquired property of defendant No.1. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 were neither the coparceners nor co-owners of the property as such they were not entitled for partition. Hence sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of one acre in Sy. No.11/20
