Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any sale of property during the pendency of a partition suit is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens, meaning the purchaser only acquires the right, title, and interest allotted to the vendor in the final partition decree.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard arguments of both sides.

2. Even though this case is at the stage of admission, with the consent of both sides, heard arguments on merits.

3. This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2019 passed in R.A.No.40/2016 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari sitting at Siruguppa (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) and judgment and decree dated 12.02.2016 in O.S.No.119/2011 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa (for short, ‘Trial Court’).

4. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5. Initially plaintiff has filed the suit against defendants No.1 to 3 praying for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties bearing Survey No.436 measuring 1 acre 91 cents and Survey No.437/B/2 measuring 1 acre 90 cents situated at Raravi Village, Siruguppa Hobli, Siruguppa Taluk.

6. The case of plaintiff before the Trial Court in nutshell is that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3. She contended that the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1-Sri Virupakshigouda died in the year 1974 leaving behind his wife, his son-defendant No.1, daughters plaintiff and Anasuya. Said Anasuya died leaving behind defendants No.2 and 3 as her heirs. Now presently mother of plaintiff is also no more. Plaintiff being class-I heir of Virupakshigouda is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. During 2011, she has obtained record of rights of suit schedule properties and came to know about the illegal entry only in the name of defendant No.1. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.

7. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 sold suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.4 under registered sale deed dated 06.09.2012. After plaintiff coming to know about these facts, she has amended the plaint and impleaded defendant No.4. Defendant No.4 in turn has executed the gift deed in favour of his wife and son and thus they are also impleaded as defendants No.5 and 6.

8. After service of summons, defendant No.1 filed his written statement, wherein he admitted the relationship between parties, but denied the plaint averments in toto. He further contended that plaintiff was married in the year 1978 and residing in her husband's house. Hence, she is not entitled for 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties. He further contended that properties situated at Chikka Jayiganuru Village are not included in the suit. Hence, suit is not maintainable in law. He further took contention that he sold suit schedule properties to defendant No.4 under agreement of sale dated 23.02.2004 for family necessity i.e. for treatment of his mother. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.

9. After impleading defendants No.4 to 6, defendant No.4 filed his written statement contending that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule properties. He has verified the revenue records pertaining to title and right of defendant No.1 over suit schedule properties. Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 colluded with each other and defendant No.1 instigated plaintiff to file the suit. Defendant No.4 is suffering from kidney disease and he has gifted the properties to his wife and son i.e. to defendants No.5 and 6. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs.

10. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues:

“ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiff proves suit properties are the joint family properties?

2) Does plaintiff proves herself and the defendan