Karnataka High Court
Sri R Nagappa S/O Ramaiah Since Dead By ... vs Sri Muninagappa on 16 February, 2023
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
RFA No. 1705 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1705 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. NAGAPPA
Digitally signed S/O RAMAIAH
by YASHODHA N
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
2. SRINIVASAMURTHY N
S/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. PUSHPALATHA
D/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4. N. DEVARAJ
S/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5. SANTHOSHKUMAR N
S/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. SRIDHAR N
S/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
-2-
RFA No. 1705 of 2021
7. SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT: BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. PURA HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MUNINAGAPPA
(KANAKAPPA LR'S)
S/O KANAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SMT. RAMESHAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. PURA HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016
3. SRI. B.V. RAJANNA
(LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA'S LR'S)
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT: BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. PURA HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016
4. SRI. B.V. MANJUNATH
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT: BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. PURA HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
-3-
RFA No. 1705 of 2021
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016
5. SRI. JAGADEESH
(H. SIDDALINGAIAH'S LR'S)
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.74, BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016
6. SMT. PREMA
D/O H. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.290
6TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS
SADANANDA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 038
7. SMT. VIJAYA
D/O H. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, 4TH CROSS ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA COLONY
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
UDAYANAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 016
8. SMT. NIRMALA
D/O H. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT: SHRITHI NILAYA
NO.323, 7TH CROSS
I CROSS, OLD MADRAS MAIN ROAD
K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036
N. SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O CHIKKA HONNAPPA
(SINCE DIED, HIS LRS
DEFENDANTS NO.9 TO 12
BROUGHT ON RECORD
AS PER THE ORDERS
DATED 17-08-2017)
-4-
RFA No. 1705 of 2021
9. SMT. SUNANDAMMA
W/O LATE N. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
10. SRI. VAGESH
S/O LATE N. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
11. SMT. JYOTHI
D/O LATE N. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
12. SRI GIRISH
S/O LATE N. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R-9 TO R-12 ARE R/AT
BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R. PURA HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016 ...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 03.09.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO. 10 IN OS.NO.9651/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING THE IA.NO. 10 FILED UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11 OF CPC., R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated September 03, 2019 in I.A.No.10 in O.S.No. 9651/2014 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the plaint.
-5-RFA No. 1705 of 2021
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are, plaintiffs filed the instant suit against defendants seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property; declaration of sale deeds dated June 07, 1962 and July 26, 1965; and that the Will dated April 07, 1980 as not binding on the plaintiffs.
4. Defendant no. 5 filed I.A.No.10 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for rejection of the plaint contending inter alia that one Nagappa was the propitious of the plaintiffs' family. He had two children namely, Siddamma and Muniyamma. Both of them were married to one Ramaiah. Siddamma had three children and Muniyamma had four children. Nagappa S/o Muniyamma died intestate. Siddamma's sons namely Kannakappa and Dyavanna had sold the suit property to one Chatter Singh vide sale deed dated June 07, 1962. In turn, Chatter Singh sold it to one Chikka Honappa vide sale deed dated July 26, 1965. Chikka Honappa built a house in the suit property. Defendant no. 5 is the -6- RFA No. 1705 of 2021 grandson of Chikka Honappa. The suit property was partitioned. Plaintiffs were residing in the same locality and had full knowledge of all the transactions.
5. In substance, it was contended by the defendant no.5 that ever since the date of purchase of suit property by their grandfather Chikka Honappa in 1965, defendant no. 5 and his family members were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit was barred by limitation.
6. Plaintiffs resisted the I.A.No.10 contending inter alia that the merits of the case cannot be considered and decided on an interlocutory application and since, partition being their first prayer it had no prescribed period of limitation.
7. The learned Trial Court framed a point for its consideration as to whether plaint does not disclose any cause of action? Answering the said point in affirmative and holding that the plaint was barred by limitation, the I.A.No.10 has been -7- RFA No. 1705 of 2021 allowed, plaint has been rejected and the suit has been dismissed.
8. Shri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, submitted that:
the instant suit was filed seeking partition and the Trial Court has incorrectly taken into consideration Article 58 and Article 109 of the Limitation Act; the Trial Court has erred in concluding that the alienation was made by the Nagappa's children.
9. With these submission, Shri. H.P. Leeladhar prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. We have carefully considered Shri. H.P. Leeladhar's submissions and perused the records.
11. Undisputed fact of the case is, the suit property was sold to one Chatter Singh on July 07, 1962 and in turn Chatter Singh sold it in favour of Chikka Honappa on July 26, 1965. -8- RFA No. 1705 of 2021
12. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the time limit of three years to file a suit seeking declaration. Admittedly, instant suit has been filed on December 11, 2014 which is after 49 years reckoned from the first sale deed.
13. It was argued by Shri. Leeladhar that the sale in favour of Chatter Singh was not within the knowledge of Late Nagappa's daughter Muniyamma and her children and they learnt about the same after obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed. The learned Trial Judge has extracted plaint averments in para 13 of the impugned order. Plaintiffs have averred that Sidamma's Children, Kankappa and Dhyavanna had sold the suit property and that Muniyamma and her children did not have knowledge of the same. Thus, as per the plaint averments, plaintiffs have admitted that the suit property was sold in the year 1962 in favour of Chatter Singh and in 1965, Chikka Honappa has purchased the same. In view of unambiguous plaint averments, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the suit is barred by limitation.
-9-RFA No. 1705 of 2021
14. Resultantly, this appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35