Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28040
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K.SOMASHEKAR, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
SRI B. N. RAJENDRA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SUMA KARNATAKA – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2020|O.S. NO.1413/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SHARATH N., SRI ARUN KUMAR B.
For the Respondents: SRI RAJARAMA S.
A widow devoid of absolute property rights cannot execute Gift deeds on joint family property; consent of all coparceners is required for valid transfer.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 122 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Suit for partition - Plaintiffs sought partition of the suit property, claimed as joint family property, after being gifted by deceased parent to defendant - Court upheld that defendant had no absolute rights to gift property without consent of coparceners - Gift deeds ruled null and void and non-binding on plaintiffs. (Paras 23-30)
(B) Law of Limitation - Suit not maintainable as allegedly barred by limitation - Court held partition claims can be maintained without limitation constraint when joint family rights are invoked - Consent for sale does not equate to relinquishment of rights. (Paras 28-30)
Facts of the case:
The dispute revolves around the joint family property of Late B. Narahari Rao, altered by Gift deeds executed by the surviving spouse against the interests of the children, who are plaintiffs herein.
Findings of Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs affirming their rights as rightful heirs to the family property and deemed the Gift deeds illegal as they lacked absolute consent and rights from the deceased's estate.
Issues: Whether the property is joint family property, and the validity of Gift deeds executed by the widow.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that lack of absolute ownership by the widow precludes her ability to gift property, establishing that the plaintiffs held legitimate claims as heirs.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. instantiation of the appeal and its parties (Para 1) |
| 2. joint family property status (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding property rights and limitations (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. evidence and testimonies presented (Para 5 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 5. conditions for valid gift deeds under hindu law (Para 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. trial court's rightful decision on property rights (Para 28 , 30) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2020 passed by the learned XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) (herein after referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) in O.S.No.1413/2016.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are defendant Nos.2 and 5 respectively and respondents are plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, all the parties to the suit except defendant Nos.1 and 5, are the children of Late B. Narahari Rao. Defendant No.1 is the wife and defendant No.5 is daughter-in-law of late B. Narahari Rao. The suit for partition of the schedule property was filed by the plaintiffs on the premise that the schedule property is a joint family property, which had been allotted to their father B. Narahari Rao during his lifetime as per the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 16.11.1961 by BDA and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to him. After his demise, with the consent of all the children, the schedule property was conveyed and registered through a sale deed dated 28.07.1990 executed by Bengaluru Development Authority, in the name of first defendant Smt. B.N. Kowsalyamma i.e., wife of B. Narahari Rao. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 4 were residing in the ground floor of the suit schedule property and defendant No.4, who was employed abroad, funded for the construction of the first floor. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with defendant No.5 were residing in the first floor of the suit schedule property. Later, defendant No.3 left the first floor house and she was shifted to outhouse portion of the ground floor. Defendant No.4 also often visited the ground floor of schedule property, thereafter, defendant Nos.2 and 5 forced defendant No.1 to reside in the outhouse of ground floor along with defendant Nos.3 and 4, thereby, defendant Nos.2 and 5 being the husband and wife stayed in the first floor of the suit schedule property along with their son. Thereafter, defendant No.2 induced defendant No.1 to execute Gift deed in his favour along with his wife-defendant No.5, accordingly, defendant No.1 gifted entire first floor portion of the schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 5 under registered Gift deed dated 02.03.2005. Similarly, defendant No.1 also gifted the entire ground floor portion of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 under registered Gift deed dated 02.03.2005. Further, defendant No.1 also gifted the second floor right to construct a residential building by defendant Nos.3 and 4 under Rectification Deed to the Gift deed dated 31.12.2013. Thereby, defendant No.1 gifted entire property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5, excluding the plaintiffs. In fact, the suit schedule property is joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants, but, defendant No.1 does not have any absolute right over the schedule property to execute registered Gift deeds in favour of beneficiary under the Gift deeds, as the schedule property is not her self-acquired property. Thus, two Gift deeds dated 02.03.2005 and Rectification deed dated 31.12.2013 are null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, since the plaintiffs being coparceners and legal heirs of late B. Narahari Rao, thus, they are entitled for their legitimate share at 1/9th each. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition.
4. After institution of the suit, d
