Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 39618
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
SIDDARAMAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SHIVALINGAPPA – Respondent
RSA 1597 of 2023
The properties in dispute were determined to be self-acquired by Mahadevappa, not joint family properties, and claims of an oral partition were not substantiated.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Partition and Injunction - Legal heirs of original defendant and plaintiff filed appeals against the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding property disputes arising from a registered partition deed dated 06.01.1964 and subsequent claims of oral partition. (Paras 1-2, 10, 24)
(B) Partition - The courts found that the suit properties were self-acquired by Mahadevappa and not part of joint family properties, thus dismissing the claims for mandatory injunction and declaration. (Paras 20-22)
(C) Limitation - The Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed 30 years after the death of Doddalingappa. (Paras 23)
Facts of the case:
The disputes arose from claims of partition among the descendants of Gudimundina Siddappa concerning properties purchased by Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa, with claims of an oral partition in 1964.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court found no evidence supporting the claims of oral partition and upheld the status of the properties as self-acquired by Mahadevappa.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the oral partition claim and the ownership of the suit properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled that the properties were self-acquired by Mahadevappa, and the claims of joint family ownership were not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Appeal in RSA No.1597/2023 is filed by the legal heirs of original defendant Siddaramappa s/o Doddalingappa aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022 passed in O.S.No. 312/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which was confirmed by judgment and order dated 02.06.2023 passed in R.A.No.26/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short).
2. RSA No. 1491/2023 is filed by the legal heirs of said Siddaramappa aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022 passed in O.S No.287/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri, by which their suit was dismissed, which was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2022 passed in R.A.No.28/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri.
3. Since the parties and facts are common in both the matters, same are taken up for analogous hearing on admission and following order is passed;
Facts in RSA No.1491/2023
4. Original plaintiff -Siddaramanna in O.S.No.287/2011 contended that one Gudimundina Siddappa was having four sons namely, (1)Halappa (2) Basappa (3) Mahadevappa and (4) Doddalingappa. That there was an oral partition of the family properties amongst the four sons of Gudimundina Siddappa in the year 1942-43. That subsequently, on 06.01.1964 a registered partition deed was entered into amongst the said four sons, in furtherance to the oral partition that had been entered into amongst them in the year 1942-43 with regard to ancestral properties. That certain properties were purchased in the name of Mahadevappa in terms of deeds of sale dated 18.04.1951 which are the suit schedule property. That though there was a partition amongst the four sons of Gudimundina Siddappa on 06.01.1964, Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa stayed and resided together as one joint family. That thereafter both Mahadevappa and Doddalingappa had entered into a oral partition on 23.04.1964 in terms of which, 1/2 share in the suit properties and in kaneshumari properties were allotted to the share of Doddalingappa and remaining 1/2 allotted to the share of Mahadevapppa. That despite of such partition, the revenue records were agreed to be mutated in the name of Mahadevappa.
5. As per the agreement, name of Mahadevappa continued and name of Doddalingappa was never entered in the revenue records. Similarly, partition was also not registered. That plaintiff being son of Doddalingappa requested the defendants to come forward to register the partition deed in accordance with partition dated 23.04.1964 and since the same was declined he had even issued a notice dated 10.4.2011 calling upon the defendants to execute and register the partition deed in respect of suit schedule property. As there was no compliance to the demands so made by the plaintiff, he was constrained to file the suit seeking relief in the nature of declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute and register a deed of partition in accordance with terms of oral partition entered into on 23.04.1964. The said suit is filed against Shivalingappa, Vishwanatha and Nagarajappa who are the sons of Mahadevappa and also against Ramesh-defendant No.3 and Rudresh-defendant No.4, who are predeceased sons of Mahadevappa namely, Jayappa.
6. Though defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared only defendant No.5 filed his written statement admitting the relationship and the description of the family properties and however denied the cause of action and relief sought for in the plaint. It is contended that there was only one partition which was of the year 1946 and which was subsequently reduced into writing and same was registered before the sub-Registrar Office, Channagiri on 06.01.1964 and ever since then, the parties have been residing separately and that there was no joint family property amongst them available for any
