Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 14791

- 1 -

RFA No. 2101 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2101 OF 2006 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT DEVAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING IN TENIGERE VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TQ, DAVANGERE DT-577001.
2.
SMT SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3.
SRI MARULASIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
4.
SRI MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5.
SRI MAHARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
6.
SRI AJJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE CHILDREN OF
LATE CHANNABASAPPA

Digitally signed
by BELUR
RANGADHAMA
NANDINI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -

RFA No. 2101 of 2006

7.
SRI SHIVANNA
S/O SANNADODDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING IN
BELALGERE VILLAGE
CHANANGIRI TQ, DAVANGERE DIST-577001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P. R. MOHAN RAO - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS
NO.1 TO 6;
SRI. N. R. NAIK - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.7)
AND:
1.
SRI REVANAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING IN BELALGERE VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TQ,
DAVANGERE DT
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS'
1(a) SMT. CHANDAMMA
W/O RAVANAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
1(b) SRI. K. MAHESHA
S/O REVANAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
1(c) SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O REVANAPPA

- 3 -

RFA No. 2101 of 2006

AGED 40 YEARS
1(d) SMT. DAKSHAYANAMMA
D/O REVANAPPA
AGED 28 YEARS
1(a) TO (d) ARE R/AT
C/O BENAKAPPA AVAKERE POST
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
1(e) SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O BELALAGERE GANESHAPPA
AGE:35 YEARS
1(f)
HALESH
S/O GANESHAPPA
MINOR
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN
RESPONDENT NO.1(e) GANGAMMA
RESPONDENTS 1(e) AND (f) ARE R/AT
KARAVA HONNALLI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. R. HIREMATHAD - ADVOCATE FOR R-1(A TO F))

THIS RFA FILED U/S.96 OF CPC PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED THAT THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DT.20.7.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.13/2004 ON
THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN),
DAVANAGERE, BE SET ASIDE, THE PLAINTIFF'S SUIT BE
DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT.

- 4 -

RFA No. 2101 of 2006

THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

A sale deed executed by a person with a life interest in a property, along with others who had no title to the property, is void ab initio.

Headnote:
PARTITION - LIFE INTEREST - SALE - [The court held that a sale deed executed by a person with a life interest in a property, along with others who had no title to the property, is void ab initio.]
Fact of the Case:

A partition deed allotted a property to a person for the purpose of maintaining another person, with the condition that the property would be allotted to the plaintiff after the latter's death. The person with the life interest, along with others, sold the property to a third party. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the property and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the person with the life interest was never put in possession of the property as a limited owner, and therefore, the question of applying Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and enlarging her limited right into an absolute right did not arise. The court also found that the person with the life interest and the others who sold the property had no title to the property, and therefore, the sale deed was void ab initio.
Issues: Whether Devamma, along with the wife and children of Channabasappa, could have sold Sy.No.166/1 in favour of defendant No.7?
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only if a female is possessed of the property as a limited owner, that limited ownership would stand enlarged into an absolute ownership. In the instant case, the suit property was allotted to Channabasappa and he was only entitled to utilise the property for providing maintenance to Devamma. It cannot, therefore, be stated that any limited ownership over the suit property had been conferred in favour of Devamma and consequently, the question of Devamma having any right over this property so as to enable her to sell the property to defendant No.7 would not arise.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff was upheld.

This appeal is by the defendants.

Revanappa,

the

plaintiff,

instituted

suit-

O.S.No.13/2004 seeking for declaration that he was the

absolute owner in actual possession of Sy.No.166/1

measuirng

guntas

situated

Bellalgere

Village,

Channagiri Taluk, Davangere District. He also sought for

consequential injunction to restrain the defendants from

interfering with his possession. A declaration was also

sought that the sale deed dated 17.12.2002 executed by

defendants 1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 was void ab

initio and was not binding on him.

It was the case of Revanappa that his father Siddappa

had three sons viz Siddalingappa, Channabasappa and

Revanappa. Defendant No.1-Devamma was the wife of the

eldest son, Siddalingappa and defendant No.2 was the wife

- 5 -

of the second son-Channabasappa, while defendants 3 to 6

were the sons of Channabasappa.

He contended that there was a registered partition

entered into by the family members on 26/6/1967 and in

the

said

partition,

Sy.No.166/1

was

allotted

Channabasappa for the purposes of maintaining the wife of

Siddalingappa i.e. Devamma, defendant No.1. It was his

case that the recital in the partition deed was that on the

death of Devamma, that property would stand allotted to

him.

He contended that his elder brother, Channabasappa

refused to provide maintenance to Devamma as per the

terms of the partition deed and a panchayath was held, in

which it was decided that the plaintiff would provide

maintenance by taking over possession of the suit property

and ever since, he had been in possession of the property

and was maintaining Devamma.

- 6 -

also

contended

that

his

elder

brother

Channabasappa had instituted a suit for injunction in

O.S.No.291/91 against him contending that he was in

possession and this suit was dismissed on 29.6.1996. He

stated that notwithstanding the filing of the said suit, his

elder

brother,

Channabasappa,

had

also

instituted

O.S.No.139/1993 against him and also against Devamma

and in the said suit, he had sought for declaration that he

was the owner of the suit property. He stated that during

the pendency of the suit, Channabasappa died and his legal

representatives came on record but ultimately the suit was

dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.1.2001.

It was contended that Channabasappa was only

entitled to utilise the land to maintain Devamma and

therefore, could not claim ownership. However, the children

of Channabasappa had managed to get the revenue entries

in their favour, as against which Devamma and himself had

challenged the said change of entries and in the revenue

proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner had ultimately

- 7 -

directed the name of Devamma to be entered subject to the

outcome of the miscellaneous petition that had been filed by

the

wife

and

children

Channabasappa

Civil

Miscellaneous No.1/2001 for setting aside the order of the

Court passed in O.S.No.139/93.

The plaintiff contended that notwithstanding the fact

that the suit for declaration had been dismissed, Devamma

and the wife and children of Channabasappa had colluded

together and had executed a sale deed dated 17.12.2002 in

favour of the defendant No.7 and this was done by taking

advantage of the old age of defendant No.1-Devamma. He

contended that since in the partition deed of the year 1967,

this property was allotted to him, neither Devamma nor

Channabasappa or his wife and children were entitled to sell

the property and he was therefore, entitled for declaration.

The suit was contested by all the defendants including

the purchaser by filing a joint written statement. In this

written statement, the defendants contended that the suit

property was in possession of Channabasappa and after his

- 8 -

death, possession was taken over by his wife and children

i.e.

defendants

was

contended

that

Channabasappa

during his life time and thereafter,

defendants 2 to 6, were regularly paying taxes and were also

maintaining Devamma as pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document