1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17
TH
DAY OF JANUARY 2014

BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA

R.S.A. No.834/2012 (RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Ramaiah,
S/o. Chikkaramaiah,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.68,
Konappana Agrahara,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 100. ... Appellant

(By Sri.V. Viswanath, Advocate)

AND:

1. Sri. Chikkonappa,
S/o. Chikkaramaiah,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at No.68,
Konappana Agrahara,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 100.

Smt. Guramma,
Since Dead by her LRs (R2 to R6):

2. Smt Pillamma,
W/o. Papa Reddy,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at
Opposite to Police Station,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 034.





2
3. Smt Jayamma,
Aged about 56 years,
D/o. Ankappa Reddy,
W/o. Seenappa Reddy,
Residing at Kottanur Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 062.

4. Smt. Shanthamma,
Aged about 51 years,
D/o. Ankappa Reddy
W/o. Late Narayana Reddy,
Residing at Kodathi Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 087.

5. Smt. Indiramma,
Aged about 46 years,
D/o. Anka Reddy,
W/o. Narayana Reddy,
Residing at Lakshminarayanapura ,
Goolimangala Dhakale,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District-562 106.

6. Sri. Ramdas Kamath,
General Manager,
4
th
Gate, Finance Department,
Infosys Technology Ltd.,
Electronic City,
Bangalore560 100. ... Respondents

(By Sri.G. S. Prasad Reddy, Advocate)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100
of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2012
passed in R.A.No.128/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,
dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree
dated 05.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.1431/2005 on the file of II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.




3
This Appeal coming for admission on this day, the Court
delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in
O.S.No.1431/2005 on the file of the II Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, being
aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of the courts below
dismissing the suit filed by him for the relief of partition
and declaration that the sale deed dated 12.06.1961
purported to have been executed by Respondent
No.1/Defendant No.1-Chkkonappa and others in favour of
Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2-Gurramma during his
minority, is not binding on him.

2. The subject matter of the suit is property
bearing House List No.113, Assessment No.113, Katha
No.428/113/113 situated at Konappana Agrahara Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East-
West: 98 ft. and North- South: 58 ft.

3. The appellant-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit
inter alia contending that the suit schedule property was



4
originally owned by his paternal grandmother Smt.
Yellamma and she died leaving behind her only son
Chikkaramaiah; that upon the death of Yellamma, the
property was succeeded by Chikkaramaiah; that the said
Chikkaramaiah had a son by name Srirama through his
first wife-Muniyamma, while through his second wife, he
had two sons namely, the plaintiff-C. Ramaiah and the 1
st

defendant-Chikoonappa; that upon the death of
Chikkaramaiah, the suit schedule property was succeeded
by the plaintiff and his brother-Defendant No.1 and thus,
the plaintiff became the owner of half share in the suit
schedule property; that the plaintiff later learnt that one
Ramaiah and Chikkaramaiah representing the minor
Ramaiah have executed registered sale deed dated
12.06.1961 in favour of the 2
nd
defendant; that
Chikkaramaiah, the father of plaintiff had no son by name
Rama; that the sale deed purported to have been executed
in respect of the suit schedule property on 12.06.1961 is
not binding on him. It was further alleged that the 2
nd

defendant had executed gift deed dated 23.11.2004 and
rectification deed dated 07.02.2005 in favour of Defendant



5
Nos. 3 to 6 in respect of suit schedule property and since
the 2
nd
defendant has not derived any right, title and
interest over the suit schedule property sold under sale
deed dated 12.06.1961, the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 have not
derived any right over the same pursuant to the Gift Deed
dated 23.11.2004 and the subsequent rectification deed.
Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration that the sale
deed is not binding on him and that he is entitled for
partition and separate possession of half share in the suit
schedule property. Defendant No.1, who is undisputably
the brother of the plaintiff, filed his written statement
denying the case of the plaintiff. He contended that he is
also known as Chikkonappa @ Chikkaramaiah. According
to him, his father Chikkaramaiah had two wives namely
Muniyamma and Yellamma and Ramaiah @ Doddonappa @
Srirama is the son through Muniyamma, while himself-
Chikkaramaiah @ Chikkoonappa and Rama @ Ramaiah,
the plaintiff, are the sons through Yellamma. He further
contended that on 12.06.1961, he along with his brother
Ramaiah @ Srirama sold the suit property in favour of the
2
nd
defendant and delivered the possession of the same to



6
the 2
nd
defendant on the same day. He contended that as
on the date of the sale, the plaintiff was minor aged about
12 years, as such, the plaintiff was under the care and
custody of himself and his brother Ramaiah @ Srirama,
and that the suit property was sold to meet the family
necessities and in the interest of the minor-plaintiff. He
also contended that the suit was barred by limitation,
therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 filed written statement
contending that the suit property was purchased by the 2
nd

defendant under the registered sale deed dated 12.06.1961,
from Ramaiah, Chikkaramaiah and Rama, hence, the 2
nd

defendant became the owner in possession of the same and
subsequently, the 2
nd
defendant gifted the said property in
their favour, as such, they have become the absolute
owners of the said property. They also contended that the
suit is barred by law of limitation, since the plaintiff has
filed suit for declaration which is in the nature of
cancellation of the sale deed beyond the period of
limitation.



7
5. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the
trial court framed the following issues and additional
issues:-
Issues:-
i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he along with
Defendant No.1 are absolute owners and in
possession of the suit property?

ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that Defendant
Nos. 3 to 6 are interfering in their peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that sale deed
dated 12.06.1961 and Gift Deed dated
23.11.2004 and Rectification Deed dated
07.02.2005 are sham and collusive documents
and thereby not binding to the rights of the
plaintiff?

iv) Whether the suit is barred by time?

v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief sought?

vi) What order or decree?

Additional Issue:-

Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the
members of family and suit property is their joint
family property?

However, subsequently, Issue No.1 was deleted.


6. The parties led oral and documentary
evidence. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of



8
oral and documentary evidence answered Issue Nos. 2,
3, 5 and Additional Issue in the negative and Issue
No.4 in the affirmative holding that the sale deed dated
12.06.1961 was executed by the elder brothers of the
plaintiff for the family necessities and therefore, it is
binding on the plaintiff; that the suit filed by the
plaintiff seeking declaration, which is in the nature of
cancellation of the sale deed, is barred by time since it
was not filed within the period of twelve years from the
date of deed or within three years from the date of his
attaining majority. Consequently, the trial court
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the
plaintiff filed appeal before the District Judge, Bangalore
Rural District, Bangalore, in R.A. No.128/2011. The
said appeal was heard and disposed of by the Presiding
Officer of Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore on 20.01.2012, whereunder, the appellate
court concurring with the findings recorded by the trial
court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said
concurrent judgment of the courts below, the plaintiff is
in appeal before this court.



9

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the judgment of the courts
below.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and on perusal of the judgment of the courts
below, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal
does not involve any question of law muchless
substantial question of law warranting consideration by
this court.
9. The trial court on appreciation of the oral
evidence, recorded a finding that the family tree
produced by the plaintiff is defective, whereas the
family tree produced by Defendant No.1 is the correct
one. The trial court came to the conclusion that
Chikkaramaiah had one son through his first wife who
was named as Ramaiah @ Doddonappa @ Srirama and
through the second wife, he had two sons namely, the
1
st
defendant and the plaintiff.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the property
was originally owned by Smt. Yellamma, the paternal



10
grandmother of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and upon
her death, it was succeeded to by her son
Chikkaramaiah and upon the death of Chikkaramaiah,
it was succeeded by his aforesaid three sons. It is also
an undisputed fact that prior to 12.06.1961,
Chikkaramaiah died and as on the date of the death of
Chikkaramaiah and also as on the date of the sale deed,
the plaintiff was a minor, as such, he was under the
care and custody of his elder brothers. It is the definite
say of Defendant No.1 that the property was sold for the
family necessities. Though it is contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant that in the sale deed,
a smaller extent is mentioned, on perusal of the sale
deed it is noticed that the boundary described in the
sale deed covers the entire extent of 98ft. x 58ft. and the
vendors had not retained any portion thereof.
Therefore, under the sale deed-Ex.D2, the entire suit
schedule property came to be sold in favour of
Defendant No.1 on 12.06.1961. The courts below
having regard to the evidence available on record, have
recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the sale was



11
for the legal necessities of the family and therefore, the
sale is binding on the plaintiff.

11. The declaration as to the effect that the sale
deed is not binding on the plaintiff is sought on the
ground that the plaintiff was minor at the time of the
sale deed. In a case of this nature, Article 59 of the
Limitation Act would be applicable. As per Article 59 of
this Act, for seeking cancellation or setting aside of an
instrument or decree or for rescission of a contract, the
period of limitation prescribed is three years and the
period of limitation begins to run when the facts
entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree
cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first
become known to him.
12. The courts below have recorded a finding
that the plaintiff in his evidence has made a categorical
admission that he came to know about the sale deed in
the year 1970. Therefore, within three years, thereafter
he should have filed suit. However, the suit was filed in
the year 2005. The suit was filed about 44 years from



12
the date of the document and about 41 or 42 years of
the plaintiff attaining majority. Therefore, under these
circumstances, the courts below are justified in law in
holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was hopelessly
barred by law of limitation.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and the evidence available on record, the
judgment of the courts below does not suffer from any
perversity or illegality, as such, no substantial question
of law is involved in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal
lacks merit and hence, it is dismissed.



SD/-
JUDGE


KGR*