1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

R.S.A.NO.134/2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVALINGEGOWDA

S/O LATE JOGIGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

R/A THIBBAYYANAHUNDI

GOPALAPURA VILLAGE & POST

JAYAPURA HOBLI

MYSURU TALUK-570 001.

& APPELLANT

[BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]

AND:

1.

SMT. SIDDAMMA

W/O NINGANNA SOMACHARI

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/A CHAMANAHALLIHUNDI VILLAGE

HAMPAPURA HOBLI

H.D.KOTE TALUK- 571 125

MYSURU DISTRICT

2.

SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA

W/O GOVINDACHARI

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

R/A CHAMANAHALLIHUNDI VILLAGE

HAMPAPURA HOBLI

H.D.KOTE TALUK- 571 125

MYSURU DISTRICT

3.

SMT. RATHNAMMA

W/O LATE SIDDACHARI

2

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/A MULLURU VILLAGE

JAYAPURA HOBLI- 570 001

MYSURU TALUK

4.

SRI. RAJASHEKARA

S/O LATE SIDDACHARI

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/A MULLURU VILLAGE

JAYAPURA HOBLI

MYSURU TALUK- 573 130

5.

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR

S/O LATE SIDDACHARI

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

R/A MULLURU VILLAGE

JAYAPURA HOBLI

MYSURU TALUK- 573 130

6.

SMT.ASHA

D/O LATE SIDDACHARI

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

R/A MULLURU VILLAGE

JAYAPURA HOBLI

MYSURU TALUK- 573 130

7.

SRI. APPAJACHARI

S/O LATE NINGACHARI

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

R/A MULLURU VILLAGE

JAYAPURA HOBLI

MYSURU TALUK- 573 130.

... RESPONDENTS

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER SECTION 100 OF

CPC.,

AGAINST

THE

JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

30.09.2020, PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE

PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT

AND

SESSIONS

JUDGE,

MYSURU

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT

AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1819/2007

ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT

MYSURU.

3

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the

learned counsel for the appellant.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that, the plaintiffs

have filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking relief of partition

in respect of suit schedule property contending that the suit

schedule property is granted in favour of their father Late

Ningachari. The defendants No.1 and 2, who are the brothers of

the plaintiffs have sold the property along with their mother

defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4, who is the appellant

herein, contending that their father had died intestate leaving

behind plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The defendant

Nos.1 to 3 are not having any absolute right but alienated the

suit schedule property in favour of the defendants No.4

excluding the plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Hence, the registered sale

deed executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of

defendant No.4 is not binding upon the share of the plaintiffs.

Hence, they have sought for the relief of partition and separate

4

possession claiming 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule

property.

3.

The defendant No.4 who is the appellant herein, also

filed written statement contending that suit schedule property is

sold in favour of him for family necessity and also plaintiffs have

not included all other properties belongs to the family. The

defendant No.4 also contended that, he is the bonafide

purchaser of the suit schedule property for the valuable

consideration. Hence, the Trial Court has framed the following

issues based on the pleadings:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 2/5^th share in the

suit schedule properties by metes and bounds?

(ii) Whether the defendant No.4 who is the appellant

herein, is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property?

(iii) Whether the defendant No.4 proves that plaintiffs are

not entitled for share in the suit schedule property?

4.

The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence allowed the suit and granted the relief as

sought in the plaint, in coming to the conclusion that the sale

deed executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant