Property inherited by a son from his mother under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is his absolute separate property and not ancestral property; thus, any challenge to its alienation is subject to the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Digitally signed DAUGHTER OF LATE G. MANJAPPA

by

SHARADAVANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

B

Location: High Court of Karnataka

THIS RFA IS FILED U/O-41, RULE-1 AND 2, R/W, SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2011 PASSED IN O.S.808/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.808/2008 whereby the plaintiffs' suit seeking cancellation of the registered sale dated 18.03.1985 executed by the father of plaintiffs No.1, 3 and 5 and husband of plaintiff No.2 in favour of the husband of defendant No.1, namely, Late Narayanaswamy, on the ground that it is a nominal deed and for consequential relief of injunction is dismissed.

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs instituted the suit in O.S. No.808/2008 contending that the suit schedule property is a joint family ancestral property. It is their specific case that the property originally belonged to one Chikkaveeramma, who had acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 06.03.1907. It is further pleaded that upon her demise, the property devolved upon her son, Muninanjappa, who is the father of the plaintiffs, and that the property continued to be enjoyed as ancestral property without any severance in the family. The plaintiffs have primarily questioned the sale deed dated 18.03.1985. According to them, the said sale deed is only a nominal document and there was no real intention to convey the property. The plaintiffs have further asserted that notwithstanding the alleged sale deed dated 18.03.1985, they have continued in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property even after the demise of their father Muninanjappa, who died on 27.11.1987. It is their further case that they came to know about the existence of the alleged sale deed only in September 2007, when defendant No.6 set up a claim over the property. Apprehending interference with their possession, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, stoutly denying the averments made in the plaint. While the defendants admitted that the property originally belonged to Chikkaveeramma, they seriously disputed the contention that the sale deed dated 18.03.1985 was nominal in nature. The defendants specifically contended that Muninanjappa, having succeeded to the property of his mother Chikkaveeramma, became the absolute owner of the property and had validly conveyed the same in favour of Narayanaswamy, the husband of defendant No.1, under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. It was therefore contended that once the property was conveyed under a registered document, Muninanjappa stood completely divested of his right, title and interest in the property and consequently the plaintiffs cannot maintain the present suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. The defendants also raised a specific plea of limitation contending that the suit filed in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 18.03.1985 is hopelessly barred by limitation.

Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon eight documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8. On the other hand, the defendants examined