Bangalore District Court
Venkatesh S N vs Channarayappa S M on 3 February, 2026
1 O.S.No.7589/2013
KABC010057162013
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40), BENGALURU CITY.
Present: Mamtaz, M.A., LL.B., P.G.D.C.A.
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Dated: This the 03rd day of February 2026
O.S. NO.7589/2013
Plaintiffs :1. SRI S.N. VENKATESH,
S/o. Late V. Nanjappa,
Aged about 48 years.
2. SRI S.N. VARADA RAJU,
S/o. Late B. Nanjappa,
Aged about 54 years,
3. SRI S.N. MUNIRAJU
S/o. Late V. Nanjappa,
Aged about 41 years.
All are residing at No. 98
Varadharajaswamy Temple
Street, Singapura Village,
2 O.S.No.7589/2013
Vidyarayapura Post,
BANGALORE - 560 097
[By Sri.N.Surendra Kumar.,
Advocate]
- Vs -
Defendants : 1. SRI S.M. CHANNARAYAPPA,
Late K. Marappa,
Aged about 52 years
2. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
D/o. Late K. Marappa,
Aged about 55 years.
3. SRI S.M. RAMMURTHY
S/o. Late Marappa,
Aged about 40 years.
4. SMT. PARVATHI
D/o Marappa,
Aged about 38 years.
5. SRI. M. VARADHARAJU,
S/o. Late K. Marappa,
Aged about 35 years.
6. SRI H. GANGARAJU,
S/o. Late Hanumaiah,
Aged about 52 years.
7. SRI H. GALAPPA,
S/o. Late Hanumaiah,
Aged about 65 years.
3 O.S.No.7589/2013
8. SRI H. MOHAN,
S/o. Late Hanumaiah,
Aged about 38 years
9. SMT VENKATAMMA,
W/o. Late Channarayappa,
Aged about 85 years.
10. SMT JAYAMMA
W/o. Late S.C. Channakeshava,
Aged about 50 years,
11. SRI. S.C. VARALAKSHMAIAH
S/o. Late Channarayappa,
Aged about 52 years.
12. SMT. S.C. DHANALAKSHMAMMA,
W/o. Sri Nagaraj
D/o. Late Channarayappa,
Aged about 45 years.
13. SRI S.C. PASHUPATHI,
S/o. Late Channarayappa,
Aged about 40 years.
14. SRI S.C. PATTABIRAMA,
S/ o. late V. Channarayappa,
Aged about 38 years.
15. SRI S.C. MUNIKRISHNA,
S/o. Late V. Channarayappa,
Aged about 35 years.
16. SRI S.C. ASHWATH KUMAR
S/o. Late V. Channarayappa,
Aged about 32 years.
4 O.S.No.7589/2013
17. SMT. BYLAMMA,
Dead by her Lrs
17 (a) Smt Manjula.K
D/o Krishnappa
W/o Sri.Munegowda,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at Chikkajala,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk
Bengaluru
17 (b) Smt Jamuna,
W/o Sri.Manjunath,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at Bynahalli,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk
Bengaluru
18. SRI S.K. VENKATESH,
S/o. Late V. Krishnappa,
Aged about 44 years.
19. SRI S.K. THIMMARAJU,
S/o. Late V. Krishnappa,
Aged about 40 years.
20. SRI S.K. MANJUNATH,
S/o. late V. Krishnappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Defendants 1 to 20 are all
residing At Singapura Village,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore.
5 O.S.No.7589/2013
21. G. VENKATAPATHI
S/o. Gangappa,
R/a Kammagondanahalli,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.
22. SRI M.R. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
S/o. Late M.V. Rama Rao,
Aged about 71 years,
23. SRI GANESH,
S/o. Late M.V. Rama Rao,
Aged about 63 years,
Defendant Nos. 22 and 23 both
are Residing at No. 14,
M.S. Nagar, Raghavappa Road,
Bangalore-560 003
24. SRI S.M. VARADHARAJ
S/o. late S. Muniswamappa,
Aged about 65 years.
25. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA,
S/o. Late Gangaiaha,
Aged about 63 years.
26. SRI N. KESHAVA REDDY,
S/o. Late Natesh Reddy,
Major.
27. SRI.N.JANARDHAN NATESH
S/o late Nitesh Reddy
Major.
6 O.S.No.7589/2013
28. SRI N. JAGADEESH,
S/o. Late Natesh Reddy,
Major
Defendants 26, 27 and 28 are
residing at No. 236, Old No. 52,
5th Cross, Kamala Nehru Layout
Ward No. 45, Triveni Road,
Yeshwanthpur,
BANGALORE-560 022.
29. SRI P. NARAYANAPPA
S/o. Pillappa,
Major.
30. SRI MUNI VENKATASWAMY
S/o. Bachappa,
Major,
Defendants No. 29 and 30 are
Residing at Devanahalli Taluk,
Ram Mandira Road,
Vijapura,Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore
[D.1 to 20 by Sri.K. Suresh.,
D.24 by Sri.Amaresh A Angadi.,
D.26 to 28 by Sri.Mailappa K., Advocate
D. 21 to 23, 25, 29, 30 - Ex parte)
Date of Institution of Suit 19.10.2013
Nature of Suit Declaration & Partition
7 O.S.No.7589/2013
Date of Commencement 13.03.2019
of Recording of evidence
Date of which Judgment 03.02.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
12 03 14
(MAMTAZ)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration, Partition and separate possession with other consequential reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case is that, one Sri Chennappa S/o Kempanna who is a propositor and he has got 4 children viz., Sri C. Channarayappa, Sri.C.Kempanna, Sri C.Venkatappa, Sri. C. Muni swamappa and Sri.Channarayappa died issue less and Sri C. Kempanna has got two children viz., Sri Marappa and Hanumaiah and C. Venkatappa has got three children V. Channarayappa, V. Nanjappa and V. Krishnappa and the plaintiff are the sons of Late V. Nanjappa. The proposed propositor have given a representation to the Special Deputy Commissioner 8 O.S.No.7589/2013 which was registered as a Tenant. Considering the possession and enjoyment, the Special Deputy Commissioner recognized and registered as permanent tenant in respect of Survey No. 1, 3, 47/1, 47/2, 49, 55, 76/1, 110/13 of Singapura Village, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore as per the endorsement dated 13-06-1958 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 10 of the Mysore Religious and Inam Abolition Act, 1954. After the death of Channappa his second son Sri C.Kempanna, is looking after and managing the entire affairs of the family. The father of the Plaintiff and their uncle and other family members are illiterate and having no worldly knowledge and they are totally unaware about the properties which are owned by their ancestors and the said Sri C. Kempanna though is an illiterate he is a wordly knowledge person and having dominate over the entire family members of the great grand fathers and there is no division of the property in respect of the suit schedule property and the Plaintiff came to know recently that the property is owned by ancestors and they are able to secure some documents only with respect to Survey No. 55 and survey No.3 of Singapura village and thereafter the Plaintiff with the assistant of worldly knowledge 9 O.S.No.7589/2013 person in the locality was able to secure the documents in respect of Survey No.3 and 55 of Singapura village which is more fully described herein referred to the schedule property and in fact there is no division of the properties among his great great grand fathers and their fathers and all the family members have blindly enjoyed the schedule property and the schedule property are in joint possession and enjoyment of all the family members and there is no severance of joint family as such the schedule property is the joint family property and is liable for partition among all the members of different branches of propositors Channappa.
3. It is further submitted that, the total extent of Sy. No.55 which is described in item No.1. The name of original propositer Channappa was shown in the Record Right Extract till the year 2011 along with Channappa one Sri Raghavendra Rao and C. D. Ganesh S.M. Vardharaju G. per the transactions it is noticed that in respect of Survey No.55 which is described in item No.1 of the property one Sri. K.Marappa who is the son of Sri C. Kempanna has executed a Sale deed in respect of Muni Veeranjanappa in respect of one acres and 30 10 O.S.No.7589/2013 guntas of land through Registered Sale Deed 23-10- 1968 Muniveerananjappa has executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 19-01-1979 in favour of Sri.Venkatapathy and in turn Sri.Venkatapathy have executed a registered sale deed dated 03-05-1980 in favor of Sri Raghavendra Rao and Ganesh in survey No.55 measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 22 guntas and retain 8 guntas and the Plaintiff also came to know that his brother of great great grand father Sri. Kempanna has also executed a Sale Deed dated 15-01-1966 in respect of 11 guntas in Survey No.55 in favour of Sri Gangaiaha father of 25th Defendant. The Plaintiff further submits that S. Muniswamappa S/o Siddappa has executed a Registered Sale deed dated 16-08-1977 in favour of his son Sri S.M. Varadharaj the 24th Defendant in respect of Survey No. 55 measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 35 guntas the said Muniswamappa was acquired through Registered Sale Deed dated 17-04-1974 executed by C.N. Muniswamappa Bhagavatar in his favor and the Plaintiff further came to know that on 29-11-2001 that S.M. Varadharaj has got executed the Rectification Deed by S. Muniswamappa Bhagavatar rectification only in respect of initial and in the said rectification deed there is a reference that it was wrongly 11 O.S.No.7589/2013 mentioned that his father name in the Registered sale deed dated 16-08-1977 as S. Muniswamappa instead of C.N. Muniswamappa but in the rectification deed Muniswamappa has again put the signature as Patel S. Muniswarmappa and father name was also described as Siddappa Sangappa It could got under stood why the initial "N" has been incorporated instead of "S" found in original sale deed dated 16-08- 1977. But despite the same why Muniswamappa has put his initial in front of his name and hence there is a lot of ambiguity and suspicious about the document which came into existence when the father name of Muniswamappa is described as Siddappa how the initial N. came into existence it creates a clouds of doubt about the transactions itself. It is submitted Sri S. Muniswamappa is total a stranger to the family of the Plaintiff and he has no connection whatsoever with any member of the family of the Plaintiff.
4. It is further submitted that, in so far as Survey No.3 is concerned Sri C. Channappa the propositor is recognized and re-granted as a permanent tenant on par with survey No.55 the total extent of land in the said survey number is 4 acres and 16 guntas and it was more fully described in item No. 2 of the schedule.
12 O.S.No.7589/2013And it is further submitted before re- grant of the said survey number the said property was conveyed by children of Channappa in favour of Syed Sab and the same has been re-conveyed only to Sri C. Kempanna by Syed Sab it is very much strain and surprise while executing the sale deed all the children of Sri.Channappa have endorsed their signature while re- conveyed Sri C. Kempanna alone take sale deed in his name by omitting coparceners as he is a dominate to the family and all further transactions has been made by Sri Kempanna and it is further submitted that the Plaintiff was able to get the record of right extract in respect of the said Survey number. The Record of right reflects the name of one Sri Janardhan Natesh measuring to an extent of one acre and hence Sri Keshava Reddy to an extent 1 acre and S.Muniswamappa to an extent of 38.07 Sri.P.Narayanappa S/o. Pillappa measuring to an extent of 0.05.08 guntas and B. Muniswamy measuring to an extent of 0.05.01 guntas and till then the Plaintiff was totally unaware about the names found in the Record of right Extract in respect of Survey No.3. However the names of Channappa was found place in the R.R. and in fact Sri C. Kempanna nor his sons K. Marappa have no right or authorities to 13 O.S.No.7589/2013 deal with the property in respect of 3 of Singapura village without the consent and concurrence of three brothers viz., C. Muniswamy C. Venkatappa and C. Channaryappa brothers of great grand father of the Plaintiff as such all the transactions are not binding on the plaintiff. And all the transactions are illegal transactions. In fact in the Record of Right Extract the name of original grantee Channappa was shown in respect of Survey No. 3 of Singapura village.
5. It is further submitted that, the children of great great grand father Channappa viz. Sri.Channarayappa Sri.C.Kempanna Venkatappa and C. Muniswamy have jointly executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 13-05-1952 in favour of Syed Sab and syed Sab inturn has executed a registered sale deed dated 27-07-1955 in favour of Sri C. Kempanna in respect of Survey No.3 measuring to an extent of 4 acres and 16 guntas of land and thereafter Sri C. Kempanna S/o Channappa has executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 01-08-1955 in favour of Dodda Mastappa S/o Mariyappa and in turn Dodda Mastappa S/o Mairyappa have executed a Registered Sale deed dated 15-04-1959 in favour of S.Muniswamappa S/o Siddappa @ Sangappa S. Muniswamappa in turn has 14 O.S.No.7589/2013 executed a registered sale deed dated 27-04-1959 in favour of H. Earaiah inturn has executed a registered sale deed 30-08-1962 in favour of S. Muniswamappa S/o. Siddappa @ Sangappa. It is further submitted that, Veeraiah has executed a registered sale deed dated 30-08-1962 in favour of S.Muniswamappa in respect of 4 acres and 16 guntas in survey No. 3 of Singapura village. The Plaintiff further submitted that the Registered sale deed dated 15-11-1966 executed by Kempanna in favour of Gangaiah and the further sale deed made and executed by Venkatapathy in favour of 22 and 23rd Defendant Sriyuths Raghavendra and S. Ganesh and so also the sale deed executed by S. Muniswamappa dated 16-08-1977 in favour of his son Vardharaj are not binding on this plaintiff as the schedule properties are the joint family properties and there is no bifurcation of the property among the great gran father nor among his fathers and his brothers. Since it is a joint family property originally allotted to Sri Channappa and all the children of Channappa are entitled to have a share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly the branches of Venkatappa are entitled for half share and the branches of Kempanna are entitled for half shares in the suit schedule 15 O.S.No.7589/2013 properties. Out of share the Venkatappa childrens viz., Channarayappa, Nanjappa and Krishnappa would have get 1/3rd share out of % share if they would have been allotted by the great grand father. Plaintiff herein are children of V. Nanjappa are entitled for 1/3 share if would have been allotted the deceased father Nanjappa. It is further submitted that, though there was some illegal transactions in respect of some of the portion of the schedule property possessions were not parted away and the possession remained intact and 95% of the possession of the schedule are with great grand father and since no individual family have absolute right and the Plaintiff and different branches of properties belongs to joint family and consequently the title authority to convey the title of the of the property if any through illegal transactions by any persons will not derive any title as such all these transactions is not binding on the Plaintiffs nor to any branches of family members. The cause of action for the suit arose about two months back and subsequently with the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. Hence, this suit.
6. After receipt of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 to 20, 24, 26 to 28 have appeared through their 16 O.S.No.7589/2013 counsel and filed their separate written statements. The defendant No. 21 to 23, 25, 29, 30 are placed ex- parte.
7. In the written statement the defendant No.1 to 20 submitted that, the defendants came to know recently the Special Deputy Commissioner recognised and registered one Sri.Chennappa who is propositor of the joint family in respect of Sy.No.1, 3, 47/1, 47/2, 49 and 55, 76/1, 110/13 of Singapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk as per the endorsement dated 13.06.1958 issued by Special Deputy Commissioner under Sec.10 of the Mysore Religious and Inam Abolition Act 1954. It is further submitted that, after death of Chennappa the 2 nd son C.Kempanna looking after and managing the entire affairs of the family and except Kempanna other family members are illiterates have no wordly knowledge though Kempanna is illiterate is a knowledgeable person taking undue advantage of ignorance dominate over the property and further these defendants enjoyed blindly different portions of the property and including the schedule property and lead their livelyhood. There is no division of the property amongst their father or grand father or great father 17 O.S.No.7589/2013 and they only know property belongs to the one Chennappa who is a propositor and it is the joint family property and joint possession and enjoyment members of different branches of all the families. Even today, the possession of the suit schedule property was intact and they came to know recently that there was a serious transaction among Kempanna and defendant No.21 to 30 and recently when they are invaded their possession tried to change the nature of schedule properties including other properties and even whatever the alleged transactions were taken place only between Kempanna S/o late Chennappa and other branches of late Chennappa who are not parties to any transactions and whatever the transactions made by branches of Chennappa ignoring other branches not binding and their rights in the joint family are intact and they are entitled their respective share and even defendant No.6 to 8 who are children of second son of Kempanna not possession of joint family properties.
8. It is further submitted that, one Sri.Chennappa who is the proprietor has acquired the schedule property and he has got 4 children namely Channarayappa, C.Kempanna, C.Muniswamappa and 18 O.S.No.7589/2013 C.Venkatappa and C.Muniswamappa died without marriage and C.Kempanna has got 2 children Marappa and Hanumaiah, defendant No.1 to 5 are children of K.Marappa and defendant No.6 to 8 are sons of Hanumaiah and Venkatappa has got 3 children C.Chennarayappa, Nanjappa and V.Krishnappa defendant No.9,11,13,14,15, 16 are wife, sister - in - law and children of Chennarayappa and defendant No.17, 18, 19, 20 are children of late V.Krishnappa. The branches of Krishnappa and branches of Chennarayappa and branches of V.Nanjappa are not parties to any transaction and their share were also not determined. Since there is no division among their father, grand father, great grand father they have entitled their share in accordance with succession. Therefore defendants have consented for judgment and decree prayed by the plaintiff in the above suit and the suit may be decreed as prayed for in the interest of justice and equity.
9. The defendant No.24 in his written statement submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. The suit of the Plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share 19 O.S.No.7589/2013 in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property bearing survey No.55, measuring to the extent of 3 Acres 29 Guntas, situated at Singapur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk is not at all maintainable in law and on facts, hence, the suit of the Plaintiffs in respect of the above said property is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Defendant No.24 being the true owner in possession of the land bearing survey No.55, measuring to the extent of 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Singapur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 16-8-1977, since then, the Defendant No.24 being the absolute owner of the land bearing survey No.55, to the extent of 1 acre 35 guntas. All the revenue records including Pahani of the said land stands in the name of the Defendant No.24. The land bearing survey No.55, to the extent of 1 acre 35 guntas came to the share of the father of the Defendant No.24 late Munishamappa (C.N.Munishamappa) during the partition among the brother of the late Munishamappa. The said Munishamappa, father of the Defendant No.24 who sold the same extent of land of 1 Acre 35 Guntas of survey No.55 of Singapur Village to one S.Munishamappa through registered sale deed dated 20 O.S.No.7589/2013 17-4-1974 for his family necessities. That the Defendant No.24 who re-purchased the said land of survey No.55 along with other lands from S.Munishamappa through registered sale deed dated 16-8-1977 as said supra. The Defendant No.24 who having acquired the above said extent of land in survey Na.55 vide registered sale deed dated 16-8-1977 and he become the absolute owner. As the said land was self acquired property of the defendant No.24, hence, the Plaintiffs have no right to claim over the self acquired property of the Defendant No.24, hence, on this ground alone, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is further submitted that, the Defendant No.24 for his family necessities has sold some extent of land to different purchasers, whereas, the Plaintiffs have not made other purchasers as party in this proceedings, hence, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-
joidner of parties. The suit of the Plaintiffs is also not maintainable, as the Plaintiffs are not in possession and owners of the above said land. The item No.1 of the schedule property in respect of the 1 Acre 35 Guntas of survey No.55 is concerned, it was alienated 21 O.S.No.7589/2013 40 years back, now, the Plaintiffs have come up with false plea it is their fore fathers property is all untenable and more over the suit for partition in respect of alienated property alone is not at all maintainable in law as laid down by our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The suit of the Plaintiffs is also not maintainable, as the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in question, hence, they have to pay the court fee under section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act on the basis of the market value of the land, whereas, the Plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly and court fee paid is insufficient, hence, the suit of the Plaintiffs is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-payment of proper court fees in view of the relief claimed is under valued, even, there is no I cause of action arose in filing the above suit, as the said transaction took place more than 40 years back, hence, the suit of the Plaintiffs is to be rejected even under order VII Rule 11(a) & (b) of CPC. The Plaintiffs are seeking prayer (b) and (g) for declaration of the sale deed dated 16-8- 1977 executed in favour of this Defendant and the sale deed dated 17-4-1974 executed by the late father of this Defendant are not binding on the Plaintiffs are all untenable and more over the said prayer is time 22 O.S.No.7589/2013 bared one, the Plaintiffs appears to be slept over the matter for last more than 40 years, now come up with this false plea of partition of alienated property is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
11. It is further submitted that, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs just to harass this Defendant and other reasons best known to them, hence, on this ground alone the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be rejected at the initial stage itself, otherwise, the Defendant being the owner and enjoyed the property for the last more than 40 years would be put to great hardship and injury, who purchased the said property after investing his hard earned money. This is a frivolous suit and same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost and more over the property in question is not available for the relief claimed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have left other moveable and immoveable properties have filed this suit in respect of alienated property. The plaintiffs have got houses in Singapur village, they have not mentioned in this suit and further the Plaintiffs have not made other members of the family as party in this suit, hence, on this ground alone, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiffs father and their grand father who got the 23 O.S.No.7589/2013 properties among the partition and those properties are also not included in this suit. The father of the Plaintiffs Sri.Nanjappa and his brothers have sold number of family properties, whereas, one of the survey No.47/2 of Singapur Village has been sold by the father of the Plaintiffs and his brother through registered sale deed dated 13-7-1972 to one S.Munishamappa of Singapur Village. This document itself clarifies that the fore fathers of the Plaintiffs have separated long back and inherited some more properties and they have sold, hence, the present suit for partition in respect of self acquired property of Defendant No.24 is not at all maintainable, hence, same is liable to be dismissed. This Defendant further submits that the suit filed by Defendant No.21 Sri. G.Venkatapathi as against this Defendant in O.S.No.547/2002, wherein, this Hon'ble Court, has clearly held that this Defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the survey No.55, to the extent of 1 Acre 35 Guntas of Singapur Village vide Judgment and Decree dated 25-9-2008 and same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.100/2009 vide order dated 24-3-2010. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
24 O.S.No.7589/201312. The defendant No.26 to 28 in their written statement has denied plaint averments and submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. That the plaintiffs have suppressed the true facts before this Hon'ble court and averred absolutely false and incorrect statements for seeking the reliefs purported to have been sought for and the suit of plaintiffs is completely shrouded with incorrect, false and unsustainable allegations, consequently the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with cost. The plaintiffs in collusion with the defendants No.1 to 20 by creating false story have filed the above fictitious suit with a sole intention to extract money from these defendants in an illegal manner even though they are not entitled for any relief as sought in the suit. Hence, such a fictitious and collusion suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The very pleading of plaintiffs as averred in para No.9 of the plaint that "
the children of their great grand father Chennappa Viz., Channarayappa, C.Kemapanna, Venkatappa and C.Munswmy have jointly executed a registered sale deed dated 13-5-1952 in favour of Syed Sab and Syed Sab inturn has executed a registered sale deed dated 25 O.S.No.7589/2013 27-7-1955 in favour of C. Kempanna in respect of survey No.3 measuring 4 Acre 16 guntas land and thereafter C.Kempanna S/o Channappa has executed a registered sale deed dated 01-08-1955 in favour of Dodda Mastapppa and said Dodda Mastappa in turn sold the same in favour of S.Muniswamappa under reg.sale deed dated 15-04-1959 and said Muniswamappa in turn sold the same in fvour of H.Eraiaha under registered sale deed dated 27-4-1959 and H.Eraiaha in turn sold the same in favour Munswamappa under registered sale deed dated 30-8-1962 " the said admitted facts need not be proved, which itself shows that the grand father of plaintiffs Viz., Vekatappa and his brothers were jointly sold the item No.2 of suit schedule property way back in the year 1952 in favour of one Syed Sab under the registered sale deed and thereby they have lost their right, title and over the item No.2 of the suit schedule property and thereafter, even though one of the brother of grand father of plaintiffs namely C.Kempanna re-purchased the same from Syed Sab under registered sale deed dated 27-7-1955 and thereafter, again C.Kempanna sold the same by executing registered sale deed dated 01-08-1955 in favour of Dodda Mastapppa and therefore, it is very 26 O.S.No.7589/2013 clear that the ancestors of plaintiffs have lost their right, title and interest whatsoever in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property way back in the year 1955 and since then the joint family right and interest of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property has been seized. In view of the above said facts, the plaintiffs cannot lay their hand as a matter of right over the item No.2 of suit schedule property and therefore, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable in the eye of law.
13. It is further submitted that, the defendants No.26 to 28 are only concerned about the 3 acre land covered in the 4 acre 16 guntas of land which is described in item no.2 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have totally suppressed about the subsequent sale transaction made i.e., from 30- 8-1962 over the item no.2 of the suit schedule property. In fact, as afore said, under the registered sale deed dated 30-8-1962 S.Muniswamappa had purchased entire measurement 4 Acre 16 guntas of land described in item no.2 of suit schedule property from Eraiaha and then he out of said 4 Acre 16 guntas to extent of 5 Acre sold in favour of father of defendants No.26 to 28 Viz., Natesh Reddy under the 27 O.S.No.7589/2013 registered sale deed dated 30-6-1970. Accordingly, in all the revenue records to extent of 3 Acre land covered in the item No.2 of suit schedule property transferred into the name father of defendants No.26 to 28 and since then 1970 the father of defendants No.26 to 28 along with them in exclusive possession and enjoyment of said 3 Acre land, having with absolute right, title and interest. Further, the father of defendant Nos.26 to 28 during his life time out of said 3 Acre land purchased by him, each 1 Acre land equally bequeathed to the defendants No.26 to 28 by executing registered 'will' dated:21.06.1995 and accordingly, after the death of father of defendants No.26 to 28, as per the said registered 'will' their names have been transferred into khatha register and also reflected in the R.T.O to the said each 1 Acre land allotted to them. Further, now the land bearing Sy. No.3 described in item No.2 of suit schedule has been phoded and accordingly, each 1 Acre land owned by the defendants No.26 to 28 covered in item no.2 of suit schedule property now comes under new Sy. No.3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 respectively. Now the entire land described in item no.2 of suit schedule is seized from its agriculture nature and the same is now comes under the BBMP Limit and accordingly, the defendants 28 O.S.No.7589/2013 No.26 to 28 have paid property taxes to BBMP. Further, out of said 1 Acre land owned by the defendant No.28 in item No.2 of suit schedule property to extent of 13 ½ guntas, he sold in favour of one E.Krishnappa under the reg. Sale deed dated 14-08-2006. The said Krishnappa is running Novodaya Vidya School in the said 13 ½ guntas of land purchased by him from the defendant No.28.
14. It is further submitted that, as aforesaid, admittedly the ancestors of plaintiffs have sold the item No.2 of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 13-5-1952, further the age of plaintiffs as shown by them in the cause title clearly indicates that by that time none of the plaintiffs were born. Further, the said sale deed executed by the grand father of plaintiffs Viz., Venkatappa along with his other brothers, not been questioned neither by the father of plaintiffs nor any one of the other family members before any court of law at any point of time. If at all the said sale deed executed by the grand father of plaintiffs was illegal and the property was not sold by them out of their free will and wish, the same would have been questioned by the grand father of plaintiffs nor the father of plaintiffs during their life 29 O.S.No.7589/2013 time. Since the item No.2 of property described in the suit schedule property disposed of by the grand father of plaintiff out of their free will and for consideration, neither the grand father nor the father of plaintiffs were not questioned the same during their life time as such looking into the any angle of the matter the plaintiffs are not having locus-standi to question the sale of item No.2 suit schedule property made by their grand father. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs liable to be dismissed as they are not having locus-standi to question the alienation made by their ancestors in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property.
15. It is further submitted that, in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property plaintiffs in prayer No.
(e) sought relief for declaration of sale deed dated 06- 11-1962 executed by H.Earaiah in favour of S.Muniswamappa measuring to an extent of 4 acre and 16 guntas in survey No.3 of Singapura village as the same is not binding on the plaintiffs share. And except the sale deed dated 06-11-1962, plaintiffs have not questioned all previous and subsequent sale deeds stands in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property, as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is 30 O.S.No.7589/2013 suffering from sever legal infirmity and liable to be dismissed on that count also. The plaintiffs after lapse of 62 years from the date of sale deed dated 13-05-1952 executed by their grand father Venkatappa along with his brothers in respect of item no.2 of suit schedule property, questioned the validity and legality of the sale transaction made in respect of item no.2 of suit schedule property and asserted their alleged joint family right over the same, as such the alleged claim of the plaintiffs in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property is not sustainable in the eye of law. The sale deed in question executed in respect of item No.2 property is more then 30 years old documents and same is acted upon, further said document presumed to be true and genuine document in the eye law and therefore, plaintiffs cannot question validity of the said documents according to their whims and fancies. Further the law is very clear that no men claim their right and interest over the property according to his whims and fancies, accordingly the plaintiffs cannot claim their imaginary right over the No.2 of suit schedule property as the same has been disposed by their ancestors way back in the year 1952, Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and 31 O.S.No.7589/2013 accordingly, the suit plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the count of law of limitation.
16. It is further submitted that, the plaintiffs have not made necessary party to the suit who are being in actual possession of suit schedule property, as such the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the count of non-joinder of necessary party. The plaintiffs are not having any kind of interest whatsoever in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property and there is no piece of document stands in the names of plaintiffs nor their ancestors to show their present alleged joint family right, interest and possession over the item No.2 of the suit schedule property and on the other hand defendants No.26 to 28 have produced all the documents to show their absolute ownership, right, interest and possession over the property owned by them in item No.2 of suit schedule property. Further, all the present and past revenue records of property owned by them in item No.2 of suit schedule property, indicates their absolute and exclusive ownership over the same. Accordingly, the defendants No.26 to 28 have perfected their right, title, interest and possession over the land owned by them in item No.2 of suit schedule property adverse to 32 O.S.No.7589/2013 the alleged jointly family right of plaintiffs. Admittedly plaintiffs are not in possession of suit schedule property in any manner and whatsoever and therefore, on the present market value of suit schedule property, the plaintiffs shall pay court fee on the relief claimed. The court fee paid by the plaintiff on the relief claimed is insufficient and relief claimed is not properly valued, as such the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on that count deficit of court fee. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation and the plaintiffs not entitled for any of the relief sought by them. There is no cause of action and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed on the court of non discloser of date of cause of action. The suit seeking partial partition not maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
17. In support of the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15.
18. In support of the case of defendants, the GPA holder of defendant No.24 got examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.11. Ex.D.1 is marked in the cross-examination of PW.1 through confrontation.
33 O.S.No.7589/201319. Both the parties not addressed their arguments.
20. On the above pleading of the parties, my predecessor in office has framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the sale deed dated 16-08-1977 executed by S.Muniswamappa in favour of defendant No.24 (S.M.Varadaraja) in respect of survey No.55 of Singapur Village measuring 1 acre 35 guntas is not binding upon the shares of plaintiffs ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 01.05.1980 executed by Venkatapathi - defendant No.21 in favour of defendants No.22 and 23 (Raghavendra Rao and S.Ganesh) in respect of survey No.55 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas is not binding upon the shares of plaintiffs ?34 O.S.No.7589/2013
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 15.11.1966 executed by C.Kempanna, in favour of Gangaiah in respect of survey No.55 measuring 11 guntas of Singapur Village is not binding upon the shares of plaintiffs ?
6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 06.11.1962 executed by H.Eariah in favour of S. Muniswamappa in respect of Survey No.3 measuring 4 acres 16 guntas of Singapur Village is not binding upon the shares of plaintiffs ?
7. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 17.04.1974 executed by C.N.Muniswamiappa Bhagavanther in favour of S. Muniswamappa in respect of Survey No.55 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas including other Survey Numbers is not binding upon the shares of plaintiffs ?
8. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 19.01.1979 executed by Muniveerananjappa in favour of defendant No.21 G.Venkatapathi in respect of Survey 35 O.S.No.7589/2013 No.55 Singapur Village measuring 1 acre 35 guntas including other Survey Numbers is not binding upon the shares of plaintiffs ?
9. Whether the Court fee paid is proper ?
10. Whether the defendant No.24 proves that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?
11. Whether the defendant No.24 proves that land Survey No.55 of Singapur Village is the self occupied property of him ?
12. Whether the defendant No.24 proves that suit of the plaintiff is hit by doctrine of non-jointer of necessary parties?
13. To what decree or order?
21. After hearing arguments and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are here under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
36 O.S.No.7589/2013
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : In the Negative
Issue No.7 : In the Negative
Issue No.8 : In the Negative
Issue No.9 : In the Negative
Issue No.10 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.11 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.12 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.13 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
22. Issue No.1 To 12 : These issues are taken
together for discussion, since they are interconnected with each other and so also they require common discussion.
23. I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the contention raised by the plaintiff here also, since I have already narrated the inception of this judgment.
24. Again I repeat, to substantiate their contentions the plaintiffs have adduced evidence.
37 O.S.No.7589/201325. The plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession and declaration with other consequential reliefs as against the defendants.
26. The contention of the plaintiffs is that, Sri. Chennappa is the propositor and he has got four children viz.,C.Channarayappa, C.Kempanna, C.Venkatappa and C.Muniswamappa and out of which, Channarayappa died issueless and C.Kempana has got two children i.e. Marappa and Hanumaiah and C. Venkatappa has got three children V. Channarayappa, V. Nanjappa and V. Krishnappa and the plaintiffs are the sons of V. Nanjappa.
27. The further contention of the plaintiff is that, Sri.Chennappa had given a representation to the Special Deputy Commissioner and considering the possession and enjoyment, the Special Deputy Commissioner recognised and registered as permanent tenant in Survey No. 1, 3, 47/1, 47/2, 49, 55, 76/1, 110/13 of Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli As per the endorsement dated 13.06.1958 under Section 10 of the Mysore Religions and Inam Abolition Act.
28. The plaintiffs further contended in the plaint that, after the death of Sri.Chennappa, his second son 38 O.S.No.7589/2013 Sri.C.Kempanna is looking after and managing the entire affairs of the family. The father of the plaintiff and uncle and other family members are illiterate and having no worldly knowledge and they are totally unaware about the properties owned by their ancestors. The above properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and they have legitimate share in this. Until today the partition was not effected between the members of the joint family.
29. The plaintiffs further contended that, Sri.Marappa, son of C. Kempanna has executed sale deed in respect of Muni Veeranjanappa for 1 acre 30 guntas of land through sale deed dated 23.10.1968 pertaining to Sy. No. 55 and sale deed dated 19.01.1979 in favour of Sri.Venkatapathy and Sri.Venkatapathy have executed registered sale deed dated 03.05.1980 in favour of Sri. Raghavendra Rao and Ganesh in Survey No. 55 measuring to an extent of 22 guntas and returned 8 guntas and plaintiff also came to know that his brother of great great grandfather Sri.Kempanna has also executed sale deed dated 15.01.1966 in respect of 11 guntas in Survey No. 55 in favour of Gangaiah, the father of the 25th defendant. The plaintiff also content other sale deed executed pertaining to their joint family 39 O.S.No.7589/2013 property and also some rectification deed as mentioned in the plaint.
30. The plaintiffs further contented in the plaint that, though there was some illegal transaction in respect of some of the portions of the scheduled property, possessions were not parted away and the possession remained intact and 95% of the possession of the scheduled are with the great grandfather and these illegal transactions are not binding on the shares of the plaintiff.
31. The 24th defendant filed the written statement and contented that he is the true owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No.55 measuring about 1 acre 35 guntas of the Singapura Village by virtue of sale deed dated 16.08.1977 and all revenue records pertaining to the above property stands in the name of 24th defendant.
32. The 24th defendant further contained in the written statement that Survey No. 55 to the extent of 1 acre 35 guntas came to the share of the father of the defendant No.24 late C.N.Munishamappa and during the partition among the brothers of the Munishamappa 40 O.S.No.7589/2013 and he sold the same extent of 1 acre 35 guntas in Survey No. 55 in favour of S. Munishamappa through sale deed dated 17.04.1974. The Defendant No. 24 who repurchased the said land of defendant No. 55 along with the other lands from S. Munishamappa through sale deed dated 16.08.1977 and he became the absolute owner of the property.
33. The 24th defendant further submitted that, for his family necessities he has sold some extent of land to different purchasers and they are not made as a party to this suit and this suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and further stated that plaintiffs are not in possession and owners of the above property. In Sy. No. 55, about 1 acre 35 guntas were alienated 40 years back.
34. The defendant No. 26 to 28 contained in the written statement that, as per para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiffs admitted that the grandfather of the plaintiffs i.e. Venkatappa and his brothers were jointly sold the Item No. 2 of suit schedule property way back in the year 1952 in favour of Mr. Syed Sab under the sale deed. The grandfather of the plaintiffs C.Kempanna repurchased the same from Mr. Syed Sab under 41 O.S.No.7589/2013 registered sale deed dated 27.07.1955 and again Mr. C. Kempanna sold the same by executing registered sale deed dated 01.08.1955 in favour of Dodda Mustappa. After several transactions, the father of defendant No.26 to 28, Sri. Natesh Reddy, purchased the property under Sale Deed dated 30-6-1970 and he executed the 'Will' in favour of defendant No. 26 to 28, bequeathing each 1 acre land 21.06.1995.
35. Perused the materials and records before this court and also the pleadings and documents produced by the parties. It is pertinent to note that both the parties not addressed their arguments.
36. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 was examined as Pw.1 and produced 15 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The Defendant to prove their case, GPA holder of the 24th defendant examined as Dw.1 and produced 10 documents which are marked as Ex.D2 to Ex.D11. Ex.D.1 is marked in the cross-examination of PW.1 through confrontation. The defendant No.1 to 20 filed written statement and prays to decree the suit and allot their share.
42 O.S.No.7589/201337. It is pertinent to note that, even though plaintiffs said that they have so many ancestral properties as mentioned in paragraph No.4, but they have not included those properties in the schedule for seeking partition. Hence partial partition is not maintainable.
38. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiffs have not challenged the sale deed pertaining to Item No.2. It was executed on 13.05.1952 by the grandfather Venkatappa along with his brothers. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs almost challenged the sale deed executed in the year 07.09.1974 and these sale deeds were executed so long back and they are challenging the same after more than 30 years which is hit by Article 58 of Limitation Act.
39. While perusing Article 58 of Law of Limitation it reads as follows :
Article 58 of limitation Act :
58 To obtain any Three When the right to sue other declaration. years. first accrues.
As per the above Article, the documents to be challenged within 3 years. But here after lapse of more than 30 years, these documents are challenged by the plaintiffs, which is hit by the above provision. The right 43 O.S.No.7589/2013 to first accrues from the date of sale deed and it extends up to 3 years. But the plaintiffs not challenged within time limit. Hence, this suit is hit by Article 58 of Limitation Act.
40. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have not included all the ancestral properties in the present suit. PW.1 deposed in the cross examination as follows:
Cross of PW.1, Page No.13, 2nd para, 8th line " ನಾನು ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಮನೆ ನನ್ನ ತಾತನ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ, ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತನ್ನು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . "
Thus, as per the above version of PW1, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not included all the ancestral properties in this suit. Hence, the suit is hit by partial partition.
41. When PW.1 was cross examined by the counsel for 24th defendant, almost he has stated that he doesn't know anything about it. The plaintiff has not produced document to show that what are all properties are the ancestral properties.
44 O.S.No.7589/201342. It is pertinent to note that, it is the plaintiff who has to prove his case stating that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and in which they have share. It is pertinent to note that all these properties were sold before 30 years and delay was not explained by the plaintiff and this suit is hit by law of limitation and also partial partition. The plaintiff has not produced document to show that it is the ancestral properties and they have legal share in that. As per the defendant No. 24, they have sold the properties to several purchasers but these purchasers were not made as parties even though defendant No.24 mentioned in the written statement. Hence the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties.
43. Both the parties have not given any evidence on behalf of the court and it is not proved.
44. Thus plaintiffs failed to prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. Hence I answered Issue Nos.1 to 9 in the Negative and Issue No.10, 11 & 12 in the Affirmative.
45. ISSUE NO.13 : In view of the findings on the above issues , I proceed to pass the following :
45 O.S.No.7589/2013O R D E R The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Grade -III Stenographer directly on the Computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of February 2026).
(MAMTAZ) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
-----
A N N E X U R E Witnesses examined for the plaintiffs :
PW.1 S.N.Venkatesh
Documents marked for plaintiffs :
Ex.P1 C/c Sale deed dated 13/5/1952
Ex.P2 C/c Sale deed dated 25/4/1959
Ex.P3 C/c Sale deed dated 27/7/1955
Ex.P4 C/c Sale deed dated 21/3/2003
Ex.P5 C/c M.R.No.H4/2013-14 dt
31/7/2002 of Sigapur village
46 O.S.No.7589/2013
Ex.P6 C/c M.R.No.H1/2013-14 dt
1/7/2013 of Sigapur village
Ex.P7 C/c RTC in respect of survey
No.55/1 of Sigapur village dated
26/11/2013
Ex.P8 C/c RTC in respect of survey
No.55/2 of Sigapur village dated
26/11/2013
Ex.P9 C/c RTC in respect of survey
No.55/3 of Sigapur village dated
26/11/2013
Ex.P10 C/c RTC in respect of survey No.3/3
of Sigapur village dated 31/8/2013
Ex.P11 C/c RTC in respect of survey No.3/2
of Sigapur village dated 31/8/2013
Ex.P12 C/c RTC in respect of survey No.3/1
of Sigapur village dated 31/8/2013
Ex.P13 C/c M.R.14/2002-03 dated
17/1/1998 of Sigapur village
Ex.P14 C/c M.R.16/2002-03 dated
21/3/2003 of Sigapur village
Ex.P15 C/c endorsement dated 13/6/1958
Witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 S.V.Guru Prasad
Documents marked for defendants :
Ex.D1 C/c of sale deed dated 17.04.1974
Ex.D2 General Power of Attorney dt 2.12.2021
executed by defendant No.24
47 O.S.No.7589/2013
Ex.D3 Medical certificate dt 9.11.2021 issued by Dr.S.Ranghanath Ex.D4 C/c sale deed dt 16.8.1977 (subject to production of typed copy) Ex.D5 C/c sale deed dt 30.6.1967 (subject to production of typed copy) Ex.D6 C/c sale deed dt 11.3.1965 (subject to production of typed copy) Ex.D7 C/c sale deed dt 31.5.1965 (subject to production of typed copy) Ex.D8 C/c sale deed dt 17.8.1966 Ex.D9 C/c sale deed dt 24.1.1970 (subject to production of typed copy) Ex.D10 C/c Judgment & decree passed in OS.547/2002 on the file of 8th ACC & SJ, Bangalore Ex.D11 C/c sale deed dt 10.4.1975 (subject to production of typed copy) (MAMTAZ) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
-----
Digitally
signed by
MAMTAZ
MAMTAZ Date:
2026.02.19
12:07:43
+0530