Karnataka High Court
H R Ravichandra S/O. Late Rajashekar ... vs Shri Yellappa on 4 January, 2011
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
£3 IN THE HIGIWE COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED "E'HIS ON THE 04"" DAY OF JANUARY 20} 1 BEFORE THE HON'E3LE3 MR. JUSTICE LNARAYANA " R.S.A.NO.279 OF 2009 BETWEEN : H.R.RAVICHANDRA4 AGED ABOUT41 YEARS, . s/0. LATE RAJASHEKAR REDDY, RESIDING AT: NQ748, 18TH MAIN, am BLOCK' KoRAMANGALA~,_ BANGALORE-560 095. ' -- A _ ":-APPELLANT [BY sRI.K.s.MALL1KARJUN R.¥£DDY,'ADV.3 ; 1- AND: """ N " 1.
sHR1_YE LLA1>'PA. ~ _ AGED Asom' 57'¥EARs,_ " "
S/O. VENKATASXNJM1./IY,*._ ' sHRm€AGARAJU," . ..... <4 .
, AGEiD- AB{3U'1'"'...54 YEARS ': us»/_Q'.--»VEN_1§A'1?ASWAMY,
- 3' am': .;vI«:1'¥:' k:A;*EA$i&KfgxM'Y, A AGE£}_ABQI;jTfj'..?8 YEARS, «S/0- LATEVM'uNHaAsApPA.
if 4 f S.H'R1"...t': HA"NDRA;P}:>A. 'A{;£s::> §J%OUT 48 YEARSE ._ j_SzQ, VENKA'FASWAMY§ an ,: ''S'HR1.RAM IESHA, ~ . ;;AGI:.D ABOUT 48 YEARS, Sf O. VENKATAS\VAi\'1Y,
ix) REiSPONDEN'I'S 1 TO 5 RESIDING AT:
NYANAPPANAIMJLLI VILLAGE.
BEGUR HOBLL IEBANGALORZEI SOUTH TALUK.
; R:«:s;§GND3«:N'1S RSA FILED U/S100 R/W.O~XI.1I, RI OF CFC, JUDGEMENT es: DEGREE DATED: 01._10.2008;..._1P.AssDD R.A.NO.54/2007, ON THE FILE OE-<*";'"';'ri'1*2' P;RL._<:i_V'-rL_ J{EDG--.T3 [sR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DIST, ESANQALORE,...D-IS?»/1'}-SSw£1§¥£} THE APPEAL AND CONHIRNHNG THE JU'DGE1\'/IENTLAND DEGREE DATED: 14.12.2006, PASSED IN Gs,No.2A1'/20o3»"D~N.VTHE'; F1L}i'_, OF THE PRLH CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN_.];~.,BANGA_LO.EA{E:RURAL'DIST;' BANGALORE. ' THIS APPEAL CGMINGDN F.C§RfLD:R(II.iS£31ON "MIG DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE }?'OLLCW:i.I\IvG: ' _ JuDGMENTd§9 This <L'eguiaA1'vd'v:3¢DGnd'«.,dppeaI_' is filed by the defendant No.4 in 0 s 'N9;'241/2063 :L4<'jr;:'t}:i§dc»: file of Principal cm: Judge (Jr.Dn.} »E33;I1ga1D.fe" .RL1VL'a1v'District the judgment and decree Jaitéd 'lat.12:fiQf§46A.._url'1ich is confirmed in R A No.54/2007 on the fik: Judge (Sr.I)n.) Bangaiore Rural District:
V".:-- hbVy.the §L{€1g§1a's';D.1i;'L";L1§1d dacree dated 1.10.2008. :2;.:E_"'Grv"€he sake Sf C:OI11="€3I1if;'f1C?€E, the pa.rtiGs would be f'v.._VrD-f€_r2*"e--ddiG as per their ranking in the trial court. f E. '*2
3. The brief facts 0i"{1"1e case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for parfgiiion. and separate pessession on the ground that the sale deed executed in favour of Ali" defendvai5i:.i"'*r.i0es not bind the parties. T he suit property was so1d_;i'i'1'M the 41" defendant, is a joint famiiy prope1'i:_y--feifwiaieh iiIjIe« defendants 1 to 3 have no independent rigiritszfrdai-ieiia-te property. The defendants 1 to 3»'we1"e piaeed did not participate in the proceedinigsi
4. On behalf of thevplaintifi', %g.p:ai::tiff'ih:mse1£ has been examined as PW--1 and as DW--1 and on behalf of 'EXQP1 to P9 were got marked which ine1uded._s_Vhthex" Qi;i:é'§riri?i'i'i' sale deed, rnutaiion register €2I~sZ"{ifaCt,_"ijé111(éi1flya'{.VpE1Ti.k.EU;, RTC extract and certified copy of t1§c_se§ie »d_e'ed;i behalf of the defendants, EXD1 to D4 iiopy of the sale deed, mutation register ..h_1i'-«e§;i1*.aet and vI5{"'£'C ext:raet and notice issued by the Geveriiment 4' .__VV'a:ie" riszed.
5. The triai court by considering the evidence__ and materiais on record has decreed the suit. The defe11dantp:' preferred regular appeal, which came to be dismieeeclili " M
6. The learned counsel for the=..:'ap;pe137anet.fisiibznifs...'that the suit property is the se'Lf--aequfred' prope:1.y....,Vof3 defendant No.1 and the sale effeetett..:ir1.._his ffavofrpr Valid in the eye of law and binding ~.The second limb of argument is of these proceedings, non» ealri V inarnely, plaintiff and defendants the safe deed by executing fee "dated 21.3.2006 and the same has been the lower appellate Court. In \fi.eW_t>f itV.'i§ee._.he. 1'1<EfId that sale deed in favour of 41%;
defen'dant.tsv as Valid and binding on all the parties. 7 reepondents who are the piaintiffs before ~ ..d'tf:1'e_tria1 CO1i£T§p were served they remained exparte. ' 5:'...VV''3;'"i1fs Court While admitting the appeal has formulated f , _ theiflotliousing sabetantia} questiens of iaw for consideration:
}. Whether the first appeilaiie court is right in vh-Qldirzg that only the facts situation and doci21_11e.1f}t"sl:'priorto the filing of a suit or dispute should iétliielfilllillldo consideration?
2. Whether any event or deircldprrieiitlplvjufhicihl permanent end to the lisvilbetweeri._lthe'-ipéisjties to 21 dispute which of the its cannot be taken courts'?
3. Whether '1"e.givstei"ed as per law out of psrties which puts an of its ca_rr1'es no vaiilefi " V V it it
9. irsmed the issues as to whether thelldlelendants 1 to 3 have eoiluded w;1t.h defeli3'rl;zlm't firtriier to execute the sale deed which would it grdeprive the ri.gl1_t. the plaintiffs 1 to 3. Before answeririg the "_e:":rd;%ialViiissz:Ie required is be examined is whether the suit 'Vl."_'-.V_sa;%.i5ie_cii:_lle"property is 21 joint ifarniiy property' or a self acquired in order to prove natu1'e of the property, plaintiffs "lint-'ti-2 produced pa3*ent.ai sale deed as per Ex.P2 & P3 which Jfim*:._", /J. was effected during the life time of father of the-._ first deferidam. The defendants 1 to 3 also did not claim made on behalf of the plaintiffs with the property. The trial court has ljieltd'"asA_ to property in favour of the plaintiff" "the;
schedule property is a joint farfi'ilji".prope1'tV5_r;"tii-1 the plaintiffs 1 to 3 also right is acquired by the plaintiffs, alienated by defendants 1 to effected on 23.10.2000 is ffthepaxties. it). Tlie he has taken a ground that the suit sehedulel was a selfiaequired property of4.thee he...has failed to substantiate the same pin-dependent. witness. Himself has been fl"a..xe2;amiriet\1~.%s f.)'lKe'_~.l but he was not available for Cross _:lie?;ai'i:.i11ati0:a~~. '5 he defericlaiit No.4 has taken a ground before fittest.' appeiiaite eotirt about the existence of COF1fl.I"I1'1Eil.l{)I1 H The said deed was also not inairked fer the purpose of 'i0e.:'exs._jri*iinat.i011 before the triai court. The eonfir17:1at:ion deed has beer} allowed by way of applieatiori. "l'herei"0;r'e, exeludingf the 3 'S a,\ \ Conf1'1'mat1'on deed, it Cannot be said that the jtldgment and decree of the courts beiow suffer from ifiegality.
11. Be that as it may, the Eearned e0ur3;"s§e1v4.:iT°:t3.1"{"
parties submitted that the parties have~'settIef_(":1Mtheir out of Court by entering into e0I1'firr1eeitiTo:1j"'r:1Aee.c£A. 21.3.2006 during the pendeneyt "~~f,he That 'V must be the reason for which thet'defe;3_ti'at1_ts to Svédid not participate in the proceedings Even before this Court, the pIain«'i*ift's.ha3qe at$j;}'eare_(_1:f'though they are served.
12. In this View of the "rnat'tef,"s1£tbs.tantia.1 questions of iaw framed are ztuswereti'-» a CC'ordir1g1y. Regular Second appea} is . V 'Mn?
{T35 as .__§T:t,a {.33 27' K3":