Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 12240
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, B. Muralidhara Pai, JJ
Balagouda Sidagouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
Dadappa Appanna Patil – Respondent
R.F.A. NO.100069 OF 2016 | R.F.A. CROB. NO.100011 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.G. Naik, G.B. Naik
For the Respondents: Santosh B. Rawoot, Bahubali N. Kanabargi
A partition suit challenging prior alienation of joint family property fails when family members are shown to have consented to the transaction, failed to challenge it during the transferor's lifetime, and the alienation is substantiated as a measure to meet family necessities or discharge debts.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rules 1 and 2, Section 96 - Partition and separate possession - Suit filed challenging alienation of joint family property - Burden of proof regarding legal necessity - Plaintiffs and other family members attested sale deeds as consenting witnesses - Challenge to sale deeds after long delay following death of manager of family -
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - First Appellate Court under statutory appeal is required to reappreciate both question of fact and law to determine if lower court committed error in assessment of evidence - Evidence of collusive nature of suit, established loan existence in family, and lack of credible evidence regarding bad vices of manager justify dismissal of claim. (Paras 15, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The suit sought partition and separate possession of joint family properties, alleging that certain sale deeds executed in 2003 were fraudulent and not for legal necessity. The main contesting defendant claimed status as a bona fide purchaser, asserting that the properties were sold to satisfy family debts. The trial court dismissed the suit, noting the absence of evidence for alleged vices and acknowledging the participation of family members in the execution of the sale deeds.
Findings of Court:
The court found the suit to be essentially collusive, noting that the plaintiffs failed to prove the absence of legal necessity or the alleged vices of the former head of the family. The active participation of family members in the transaction as attesting witnesses and the long delay in challenging the sale deeds established the validity of the transfers.
Issues: Whether the sale deeds executed by the family manager and other members were binding on the joint family and whether the trial court erred in concluding that the sales were for family necessity.
Ratio Decidendi: Where family members act as consenting witnesses to a property transaction and fail to challenge the sale during the lifetime of the manager, later claims of invalidity based on vague allegations of substance abuse are unsustainable. Once it is established that the sale was for clearing family debts and the possession was handed over to the purchaser, the claim for partition in respect of such alienated properties must fail.
Result: Appeal and Cross Objections stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties' claims regarding joint family property status and contested sale deeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court's framing of issues, evidentiary record, and findings on necessity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments concerning legal necessity and validity of third-party bonafide purchaser status. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. appellate analysis of evidentiary admissions and proof of family legal necessity. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
The Regular First Appeal and the Regular First Appeal
Cross Objection are filed challenging the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit in
respect of the properties which have been sold in favour of
defendant No. 12 by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the
defendants No.1 to 5 so also defendants No. 7 to 11 on the
file of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag in O.S.
No. 56/2011 vide judgment dated 11.02.2016.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs as well
as the defendants who have filed this appeal and the cross
objection is as follows:
In the plaint as well as in the written statement filed
by them they contended that the suit properties belong to
the joint family and plaintiffs claim 1/3 share in the said
properties. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife.
It is contended that sale deed was executed without their
knowledge and behind their back, without any legal
necessity. Hence sale deeds are not binding on the shares
of the plaintiffs. It is contended that deceased Sidagouda
Patil said to have executed two sale deeds dated
14.05.2003 in respect of R.S. No. 4/1 and also in respect of
4/4A totally measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and 3 acres 24
guntas respectively in favour of defendant No. 12. On the
same day, defendant No. 8 said to have executed a sale
deed in respect of R.S. No. 4/4 measuring 3 acres 24
guntas in favour of defendant No. 12 so also on the very
same day defendant No. 7 said to have executed another
sale deed in respect of R.S. No. 4/2D measuring 16 guntas
and R.S. No. 4/4B measuring 3.23 acres in favour of
defendant No. 12. It is contended that the said properties
are part and parcel of the suit property bearing R.S. No. 4.
3. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant No. 12
has got created these sale deeds with an intention to grab
suit properties. It is also contended that defendant No. 12
is not a bonafide purchaser. There is no partition by metes
and bounds in the suit properties. The plaintiffs are also in
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
Defendant No. 12 on the basis of these sale deeds causing
disturbance to the plaintiffs with their possession. It is also
contended by the defendants that when they filed their
individual written statements, defendant No.1 contends that
the case of the plaintiff is true and he also claims 1/3rd
share so also defendants No.2 to 5 filed their written
statement admitting the plaint averments. They also claim
for 1/3 share so also defendants No. 6, 9 to 12 have also
admitted the plaint averments and prayed 1/3 share in the
suit properties. Hence it is clear that based on the pleadings
of the plaintiffs as well as other defendants except
defendant No. 12 all of them are sailing in the same boat
contending that sale deeds are created by defendant No.12.
4. The defendant No. 12 who has filed the written
statement has denied the plaint averments and contended
that he had purchased the properties by paying the sale
consideration and from the date of sale he is in possession
of the same and the said land was divided and he has
purchased portion of the properties in R.S. No. 4 from the
defendant No.1 as well as defendants No. 7 and 8 on the
same day, i.e. on 14.05.2003. Those properties are sold for
the family necessities. The said properties have been fallen
to the share of the deceased Sidagouda Patil in the family
properties. It is also contended that first plaintiff was
personally present at the time of execution of the sale
deeds by
