Karnataka High Court
Smt. Narasamma vs Sri. R M Venkataramaiah on 29 September, 2023
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
R.F.A No.1868/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
R.F.A NO.1868 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA
W/O LATE K. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT RAMESHWARA (VILLAGE) AND (POST)
DODDABELAVANGALA (HOBLI)
DODDABALLAPUR (TALUK)
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 204
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR's
I.E. APPELLANTS NO.2, 3 AND 4 AND
RESPONDENTS NO.2, 3 AND 4
(ALL HER SONS AND DAUGHTERS)
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O GORIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR (V)
NELAMANGALA TALUK
KASABA HOBLI
T.BEGUR (POST)
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
3. SMT. THAYAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGEDA BOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.204, PIPE LINE ROAD
NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE
R.F.A No.1868/2018
2
MUTHURAYASWAMY LAYOUT
SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE-560 091
4. SMT. KOMALA
W/O RAMANJENAYA
AGEDA BOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT RING ROAD, MARALURU
OPP. MARUTHI NURSING HOME
TUMKUR-562 105 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. R. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R.M. VENKATARAMAIAH
S/O PATEL MUNI ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT RAMESHWARA (VILLAGE)
DODDABELAVANGALA (HOBLI)
DODDABALLAPURA (TALUK)
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 204
2. SRI. R.H. DAYANANDA
S/O LATE K. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. SRI. R.H. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE K. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. SRI. RAJAGOPAL
S/O LATE K. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDENT OF RAMESHWARA (V) AND (P)
DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA (T)
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 204
5. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMAIAH
R.F.A No.1868/2018
3
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT CHENNANAYAKAPALYA
MYSORE LAMP LAYOUT
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
NAGASANDRA
NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE
BENGALURU-560 073
6. THE BRANCH MANAGER
AXIS BANK LTD.
DODDABALLAPURA BRANCH
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. T.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 - [ABSENT];
SMT. K.B. SREEDEVI, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W.SEC.96 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.VII IN
OS NO.181/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
DODDABALLAPUR ALLOWING THE IA NO.VII FILED FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS RFA, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 29.08.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the order dated August 6, 2018 in O.S. No.181/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur rejecting the plaint in the suit for declaration.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. R.F.A No.1868/2018 4
3. Heard Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs and Shri. Madhusudhan Rao, learned Advocate for the respondents/defendants.
4. Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit seeking declaration that:
plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 are the title- holders of schedule 'A' of suit property; schedule 'B' property belongs to the Government; and the Gift Deed dated 25.01.1973 as not binding on plaintiffs.
5. Brief facts of the case are, first plaintiff's husband Hanumaiah had purchased schedule A property. One Ashwanthnarayana had purchased schedule B property. Both Hanumaiah and Ashwanthnarayana gifted their respective properties in favour of Venkatamramaiah (defendant No.1) to utilise the income derived from the properties for Shri. Anjaneya Swamy and Shri. Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temples.
R.F.A No.1868/20185
6. Venkatamramaiah applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of both schedule A and B properties and it was granted. Hanumaiah lost his challenge to the grant order made by Land Tribunal in both the W.P.No.31834/1995 and the Writ Appeal filed thereon.
7. After Hanumaiah's death, his wife and daughters have brought the instant suit with above prayers.
8. Venkatamramaiah has filed I.A. No. VII under Order 7 Rule 11(A) and (D) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the lands were granted to him by the State Government.
9. The I.A. was resisted by plaintiffs contending inter alia that Hanumaiah and Ashwathnarayana had gifted the property to Venkatamramaiah to take care of the temples but he has claimed the occupancy rights suppressing the gift. The gift deed was executed with a condition that Venkataramaiah should utilize the income derived from the lands for the R.F.A No.1868/2018 6 maintanence of temples. Venkatramaiah did not adhere to the same.
10. The learned Trial Judge has framed a solitary point for his consideration and rejected the plaint.
11. Shri. Haranahalli, for the plaintiffs, praying to allow this appeal and to set-aside the impugned order, submitted that:
the Trial Court failed to notice that Venkatamramaiah has obtained the occupancy rights by suppressing the fact that the lands were gifted in his favour;
the learned Trial Judge has failed to notice that rendering service and taking care of the temples was the sole purpose of the gift. In fragrant violation of Hanumaiah's wishes Venkatamramaiah has usurped the lands for his own benefit;R.F.A No.1868/2018
7 the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact;
the above aspects can be decided by farming issues and after a full dressed trial.
12. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Madhusudan, arguing in support of the impugned order mainly submitted that:
the suit is barred by limitation. The Gift deed was executed in the year 1973, and the suit challenging the same has been filed in 2016; the suit is also barred under Section 132 of the Land Reforms Act;
the order of grant in favour of Venkataramaiah by the Land Tribunal has attained finality.
13. Smt. Shreedevi learned Advocate for Axis Bank (defendant No.6) submitted that schedule 'A' property has been mortgaged to the bank.
14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
R.F.A No.1868/20188
15. Based on material on record and the submissions made by the learned Advocates the point which arises for our consideration is whether the impugned order calls for any interference?
16. Undisputed facts of the case are, Hanumaiah and Ashwathnarayana gifted two pieces of properties in favour of Venkataramaiah. Plaintiffs' case is that the purpose of the gift was to render service and to take care of the two temples.
17. In substance, plaintiffs' case is that the lands were endowed to the temples under the management of Venkataramaiah.
18. Venkataramaiah's defence is that the occupancy rights of the lands have been granted to him by the Land Tribunal. The order of the Land Tribunal has attained finality.
19. The pleadings of parties narrated above give rise to contentious issues such as whether the suit properties were gifted to Venkataramaiah to hold in trust for the temples. R.F.A No.1868/2018 9
20. The learned Trial Judge has allowed the I.A. mainly on three grounds. Firstly that conditional gift is not permissible under the Transfer of Property Act. Secondly that if the gift is considered as a Trust Deed, then the authority to decide the matter, would be the Charity Commissioner. Thirdly on the point of limitation.
21. The gift deed is referred in paragraph No. 4 of the plaint and a copy of Gift Deed has been annexed to plaint as Annexure-C. It is stated in the Gift Deed that the income from the gifted properties must be used for lighting of lamp and other rituals of the temples. The purpose of the Gift Deed is maintenance of the temples. These contents of the Gift Deed give rise to contentious issues which cannot be decided without appreciation of evidence. Resultantly this appeal merits consideration and hence the following: R.F.A No.1868/2018 10
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed
(ii) Suit in O.S. No.181/2016 is remanded to the Trial Court for consideration from the stage where it was terminated.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS