The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.58/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 03.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.404/2008 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the children of Muniyappa i.e., defendant No.1. The suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.1 out of the joint family nucleus and the said property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the members of the Hindu undivided family, and no partition is effected. It is contended that defendant No.1 had no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs demanded a partition and separate possession, however defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting that the plaintiffs are his children, and they are the members of the Hindu Undivided joint family, and enjoying the suit schedule property till today. All the members are having equal right over the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.1 was the owner of the property bearing land Sy.No.144/2, measuring 2 acres, 5 guntas, and it is his ancestral and joint family property and originally, the said property belonged to his father Munishamappa and after his demise, the Katha was transferred in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 sold the property bearing Sy.No.144/2 measuring 1 acre 12^1/2 guntas in favour of G.N. Dyavanna and Byrappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.03.1976. Out of the said sale consideration the suit property was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 25.03.1976. Since then the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the alleged sale deed is created and possession is not delivered to defendant No.2. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and it is also denied that there is no prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. It is contended that plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 have sold the suit land to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1997 in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property since the date of purchase. It is contended that the plaintiffs have no right to claim a share in the land to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have questioned the sale transaction after lapse of 12 years and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. It is contended that defendant No.2 became the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of reg