IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1555 OF 2022 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. NATESH,

S/O SRI. BASAVARAJU,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

2. SMT. VASANTHA, D/O SRI BASAVARAJU.

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

3. SMT. REKHA,

D/O SRI. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 4. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O SRI BASAVARAJU,

Digitally signed

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

by DEVIKA M

Location: HIGH

THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE

COURT OF

R/O ERAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE,

KARNATAKA

YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571130

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SIDDAPPA,

S/O MOOLE HATTI SANNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

RESIDING AT ERAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571130.

SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

1(a) SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE SIDDAPPA.

1(b) SRI. GURU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA.

1(c) SRI. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA.

RESPONDENTS NO.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDING AT ERAPPANA KOPPALU VILLAGE YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571130.

2. SRI. B.K.PRABHUDEVARAJE URS, S/O LATE KRISHNA URS, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 3^RD MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570023.

…RESPONDENTS (R1(a), R1(b), R1(c) AND R2 ARE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2022 PASSED IN R.A.No.52/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, husband of plaintiff No.4 and brother of defendant No.2. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with their mother have sold the property in favour of defendant No.3 vide sale deed dated 21.02.1994 in respect of item No.1 of the suit properties and the same not binds the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to put them in possession of 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties and grant such other reliefs. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that they are entitled for 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right in the suit schedule properties, since defendant No.3 had purchased the property on 21.02.1994 and there cannot be any question of granting of share in favour of the plaintiffs, as claimed.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P23. On the other hand, defendant No.3 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, granted the relief in respect of item No.2 of the suit property is concerned. In respect of item No.1 is concerned, comes to the conclusion that sale deed was executed on 21.02.1994 and suit was filed in the year 2012 and as on the date of execution of sale deed, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were minors. But as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, the suit has to be filed within 3 years when ward attained the majority. Now in the cause title, the age of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 is shown as 33, 35 and 30 years respectively. But suit is filed after 3 years of attaining the age of majority. In paragraph No.17, the T