The sale deed executed during the appellants' minority is valid as the appellants failed to challenge it within the limitation period; ownership claims of joint family properties must be robustly evidenced.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents on admission.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hirekerur, in O.S. No.16/2006 dated 08.01.2010, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, i.e., the Fast Track Judge, Ranebennur, in R.A. No.40/2010 dated 30.08.2012.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by Hanumanthappa A/F Bhimappa Joger is illegal and not binding on their share, and for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties, as well as for a permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos.2 to 6 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the propositus of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, namely Hanumanthappa @ Bhimappa Joger, died on 20.06.1967. The plaintiffs and defendants are the children of the said Hanumanthappa. Defendants Nos.2 to 5 allegedly created a sale deed in their favour with respect to the suit properties; hence, the same were included in the present suit. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, who have their respective shares therein. Defendants Nos.2 to 6 have no right, title, or interest over the suit properties. The suit properties were originally acquired by the father of the plaintiffs from his adopted father. It is alleged that the said Hanumanthappa, who was addicted to bad vices, executed a sale deed in favour of Shediyappa Immadi illegally in 1967 during the minority of the plaintiffs. There was no family necessity to sell the suit properties, and therefore the said sale transaction is not binding on the plaintiffs’ share. In 1972, Shediyappa sold the suit properties to defendant No.2. Subsequently, defendant No.2 and his children (defendants Nos.3 to 6) partitioned the suit properties and created certain documents. Mutation entries (ME Nos.646, 716, 838 and 1058, etc.) relating to the suit properties are alleged to be illegal. Hence, the plaintiffs sought for decreeing the appeal.

6. In response to the summons issued in the case, the defendants appeared through counsel. Defendant No.1 did not file a written statement, while defendant No.4 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants Nos.2, 3, and 5 and contended that the suit properties were purchased by Shediyappa on 29.05.1972 for the defendants’ family. On the date of purchase, the said properties were in the possession of the defendants as joint family properties. Subsequently, there was a partition among defendants Nos.2 to 6, and the suit properties fell to the shares of defendants Nos.3 to 6, who have since been in possession of their respective shares. The plaintiffs have no right over the suit properties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. On these grounds, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed nine issues.

8. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined PW-1 and produced documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.8. On the other hand, the defendants examined DW-1 but did not produce any documents.

9. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court answered issues Nos.1, 3, 6, and 8 in the negative, and issues Nos.2, 4, 5, and 7 in the affirmative, and consequently, dismissed the pla