Bangalore District Court
Asha vs Ramachandra K on 1 April, 2026
KABC0A0001612014
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.26214/2014
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Asha,
D/o. K. Ramachandra,
W/o. K. Manjunatha,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at Dinnur Village,
Channarayapatna Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri K.V. Venkatesh, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. K. Ramachandra,
S/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at Thanisandra,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.26214/2014
2. Smt. R. Kavitha,
D/o. K. Ramachandra,
W/o. C. Srinivas,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.386, Old KEB Road,
Nagawara AC Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
3. Lakshman,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o. Chikkanna,
Residing at No.548, 4th Main,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560 086.
4. M. R. Seetharam,
S/o. Late M.S. Ramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Resident of Gokula House,
Gokula Extension, Mathikere,
Bangalore - 560 054.
5. G:Corp Homes Private Limited,
Registered Office at No.21/19,
G Corp Homes Private Limited,
Craig Park Layout, Off M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Represented by its Director,
Muninder Seeru.
(D.1 by Sri K. Raghavendra, Advocate)
(D.2 by Sri Nagesh Kumar G.M., Advocate)
(D.4 by G.K. Bhavana, Advocate)
(D.5 by Sri Bhargava Bhat, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 11-08-2014
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Partition Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 03-03-2015
of recording of the evidence
3 O.S.No.26214/2014
Date on which the Judgment : 01-04-2026.
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 11years, 06months, 20days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the plaintiff against the
defendants for the relief of partition and separate
possession of her 1/3rd share in suit schedule
mentioned property by metes and bounds. The plaintiff
has sought for declaration to declare that, sale deed
dated 09.01.2003 executed by defendants No.1 and 2
through their General Power of Attorney holder i.e.,
defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of
suit schedule property is not binding on the share of
plaintiff and to grant such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff’s in brief is as
under:-
That, plaintiff and defendant No.2 are daughters of
defendant No.1. By virtue of oral partition dated
4 O.S.No.26214/201404.09.1999 which was effected between defendant No.1
and his brothers, suit property was allotted to
defendant No.1. Thus, suit schedule property is an
ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and
2. There is no partition in suit property between
plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. Plaintiff and
defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for equal share in
suit property. Plaintiff is still in joint possession and
enjoyment of suit property. On 14.07.2014, defendant
No.1, 3 and 4 along with some real estate agents come
to suit property for inspection, same was objected by
plaintiff. At that time, it was informed to plaintiff that,
defendant No.4 has purchased suit property. After
obtaining documents, plaintiff come to know defendants
No.1 and 2 have illegally executed General Power of
Attorney dated in favour of defendant No.3. On
09.01.2003 defendant No.3 claiming to be GPA Holder
of defendants No.1 and 2 sold suit property in favour of
defendant No.4. Said document is fraudulent one and
has no valid in the eyes of law. No GPA can be executed
on behalf of minor as per Contract Act. Defendant No.1
was addicted to bad habits. The defendants No.1 and 2
5 O.S.No.26214/2014have no absolute right over suit property. Suit property
is ancestral and joint property of plaintiff. Sale deed in
favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on plaintiff and
no sale consideration amount received by father of
plaintiff and same was not for benefit of joint family or
for legal necessary. The defendant No.4 along with
henchmen attempted to interfere in suit property. On
these pleadings, plaintiff has prayed to decree suit as
prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons,
defendants No.1 to 5 have tendered their appearance
before the court through their respective counsels and
contested the case. The defendants No.4 and 5 have
filed their written statement.
4. The contents of written statement of
defendants No.4 and 5 in brief are as under:-
The suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable in
law and on facts and same is liable to be dismissed.
Suit schedule property was allotted to share of
defendant No.1 under a partition in the year 1990
between himself and his brothers. Thus suit property
6 O.S.No.26214/2014become his individual and absolute property as per
Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. The defendant No.1
has no male heirs. Hence, plaintiff has no right, title or
interest over suit schedule property. Suit schedule
property having been sold on 09.01.2003 which is
much prior to cut off date as mentioned in proviso to
amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act 2005,
consequently, plaintiff has no right in suit schedule
property. A challenge to sale deed dated 09.01.2003 by
plaintiff should have been made within three years from
her attaining majority. Suit filed nearly nine years after
plaintiff attaining majority. Hence, suit is barred by
time. On date of filing suit, very suit property was
already developed by defendants and they have
acquired other properties surrounding suit property
and put huge apartment structure. Plaintiff is not in
possession of suit property. Court fees paid by plaintiff
is highly insufficient. Defendant No.1 along with
defendant No.2 and representing plaintiff, who was
minor then have executed registered Power of Attorney
dated 10.10.2002 in favour of defendant No.3
authorizing him to alienate suit property. Based on
7 O.S.No.26214/2014same defendant No.3 has alienated suit property in
favour of defendant No.4 and handed over possession.
Plaintiff colluded with defendants No.1 and 2, thereby
filed present suit to extract money from defendants and
to make illegal gain. There is no cause of action for
plaintiff to file present suit. Suit property was duly
converted from agricultural to non-agricultural
residential purpose by order of Deputy Commissioner
dated 07.12.2002 at the cost of defendant No.4.
Defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser for value and
has paid sale consideration to defendants No.1 and
defendant No.3. The defendant No.4 entered into a Joint
Development Agreement dated 02.09.2010 with
defendant No.5 in respect of suit property among other
several properties for residential development of
properties. Defendant No.1 having lawfully alienated
suit property, plaintiff cannot have any claim now. On
these grounds, defendants No.4 and 5 have requested
to dismiss suit filed by plaintiff.
6. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties,
this court has framed the following :-
8 O.S.No.26214/2014
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
plaint schedule property is the joint
family property of the plaintiff and
defendants No.1 and 2?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves
that she is entitled for 1/3rd share in
the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the defendant No.4 proves
that the plaint schedule property was
the self acquired property of the
defendant No.1 in view of Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act and the
plaintiff has no right over the plaint
schedule property as contended in
para No.1(a), 1(f) and 2 of the written
statement?
4. Whether the defendant No.4 further
proves that the plaintiff has no right
over the suit schedule property and
cannot challenge the sale deed dated
09.01.2003 in view of Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Amendment Act
2005?
5. Whether the defendant No.4 further
proves that the suit of the plaintiff is
barred by limitation?
9 O.S.No.26214/2014
6. Whether the defendant No.4 proves
that he is the bonafide purchaser of
the suit schedule property?
7. Whether the defendant No.4 proves
that, the valuation of the suit for the
purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
not correct?
8. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the
sale deed dated 09.01.2003 executed
by the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour
of defendant No.4 is not binding on
her?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs claimed in the plaint?
10. What order or decree?
6. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff
examined herself as PW1 and produced in 24
documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.24. The defendant No.4
examined himself as D.W.1 and Authorized signatory of
defendant No.5 company examined himself as D.W.2
and produced in 35 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.35.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for plaintiffs and learned counsel for defendant No.4
and I have perused the case records.
10 O.S.No.26214/2014
8. My answers to the above issues are as under-
ISSUE No.1 – In the negative;
ISSUE No.2 – In the negative;
ISSUE No.3 – In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 – In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 – In the negative;
ISSUE No.6 – In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.7 – In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.8 – In the negative;
ISSUE No.9 – In the negative;
ISSUE No.10 – As per final order,
for the following –
REASONS
9. ISSUES No.1, 3, 4 and 8 :- As these issues are
inter-related to each other and involves common
appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on
one issue are bearing on other issue, in order to avoid
repetition of facts and for convenience sake, both issues
are taken together for common discussion.
10. It is claimed by plaintiff that, she herself and
defendant No. 2 are daughters of defendant No.1. Fact to
11 O.S.No.26214/2014
be noted here, defendants No. 1 and 2, though appeared
before court, they have not denied by filing their written
statement about their relationship with plaintiff as claimed
by plaintiff in her pleadings.
11. It is specifically pleaded and the same is deposed
by plaintiff, who examined before court as PW1 that, by
virtue of oral partition dated 04.09.1990, suit schedule
property was allotted to defendant No.1 in family partition.
The contesting defendants No. 4 and 5 have not disputed
fact that, suit schedule property was acquired by defendant
No.1 under partition dated 04.09.1990. The contesting
defendants in their written statement itself have admitted
said fact. Partition deed dated 04.09.1990 has been
produced before the court as per Ex. D2.
12. According to plaintiff, after petition, wherein
defendant No.1 was allotted with suit property, same was
not divided among children of defendant No.1. The
defendant No.1 has no individual legal right to alienate or
transfer or create any mode of encumbrance over suit
property. The suit property is ancestral and joint family
property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2. Records of
12 O.S.No.26214/2014
rights of suit property have been produced as per Ex.P1
and Ex.P2. Ex.D1 is mutation order which was effected
based on partition deed as per Ex.D2.
13. On perusal of these old records of rights, it is
mentioned, name of defendant No.1 entered to suit
property based on IHC No. 3/1990/91. Based on above-
mentioned documents, plaintiff is claiming suit schedule
property as ancestral and joint family property of herself
and defendant No.1. Per contra, contesting defendants
have contended, suit schedule property upon partition as
per Ex.D2 no longer remained as joint family property and
come to defendant No.1 as his self-acquired property and
shall devolve as per provisions of Section 8 of Hindu
Succession Act.
14. Sale deed dated 09.01.2003 executed by
defendants No.1 and 2 through their GPA holder, who is
defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of
suit property has been produced as per Ex.P17. Ex.22 is a
certified copy of registered general power of Attorney
executed by defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and also by
plaintiff represented by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.3 in respect of suit property.
13 O.S.No.26214/2014
15. It is specifically deposed by PW1 in her
examination chief that, sale deed as per Ex.P17 is a
fraudulent document and same has no value in the eyes of
law. Further, same is not binding on plaintiff. Sale
consideration amount received by defendant No.1 was not
for benefit of joint family and was not for any legal
necessities of joint family. It is also contented that, no GPA
can be executed on behalf of minor as per Contract Act.
16. The PW1 in her cross-examination has deposed
that, she know the contents of sale deed as per Ex.P17. It
is admitted by plaintiff that, under Ex.P17 her father
defendant No.1 and her sister, who is defendant No.2 have
sold suit property in favour of defendant No.4 and she was
minor represented by her father natural guardian. It is also
admitted by plaintiff that, as per Ex.P22- GPA executed by
her father and sister and also as a minor guardian of
plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 3, based on same
defendant No.3 executed the sale deed as per Ex.P17.
17. The authorized signatory of defendant No.4, who
examined as DW1, in his cross-examination has deposed,
in agreement for sale or in sale deed, it is not mentioned
14 O.S.No.26214/2014
about sale consideration amount paid to plaintiff and
defendant No.2. It is also admitted by DW1 that, in GPA,
sale consideration amount is not mentioned. An authorized
signatory of defendant No. 5, who examined as DW2 in his
cross-examination has denied, suit property is ancestral
property of plaintiff, her sister and defendant No.1.
18. According to plaintiff, her father defendant No.1
was allotted with suit property in family partition. As such
suit property is ancestral property of plaintiff and
defendants No.1 and 2. It is the specific say of plaintiff that,
as suit property is an ancestral and joint family property,
defendants No. 1 and defendant No. 2 have no independent
right to deal with suit property. The plaintiff has got a right
and share in suit property as per provisions of Amended
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 2005. On the other
hand, it is specific contention of defendants No. 4 and 5
and same is argued by learned counsels for defendants
that, suit property allotted to defendant No.1 in family
partition. The moment he received said property in
partition, it became his absolute property.
19. The learned counsels for contesting
defendants in support of their arguments relied upon
15 O.S.No.26214/2014
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1986) 3
SCC 567 in case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Kanpur and others V/s. Chander Sen and others,
wherein it is held that, Under the Hindu Law, the
moment a son is born, he gets a share in the fathers
property and becomes part of the coparcenary. His right
accrues to him not on the death of the father of
inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his
birth. Normally, therefore, whenever the father gets a
property from whatever source, from the grandfather or
from any other source, be it separated property or not,
his son should have a share in that and it will become
part of the joint Hindu family with him. But this
position has since been affected by section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act. Since the Preamble to the act
reiterates that the act is to “amend” and codify the law
and section 4 thereof makes it clear that one should
look to the act in case of doubt and not to the pre-
existing Hindu law, the express words of section 8 of the
Act would prevail over the aforesaid general law. When
therefor, son inherits the property in the situation
contemplated by section 8 he does not take it as karta
16 O.S.No.26214/2014
of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual
capacity.
20. The learned counsel for defendant No.5 has
further relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2016) 4 SCC 68 in case of Iswar Uttam
V/s. Saubhag Singh, wherein it is held that, The law,
therefore, insofar as it applies to joint family property
governed by the Mitakshara School, prior to the
amendment of 2005 could therefore be summarized as
follows:-
On the application of section 8 of the act, either by
reason of the death of a make Hindu leaving self-
acquired property or by the application of section 6
proviso, such property would devolve only by intestacy
and not survivorship.
On a conjoint reading of sections 4, 8 and 19 of the
Act, after joint family property has been distributed in
accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the
joint family property ceases to be joint family property in
the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to
it as they hold the property as tenants in common and
not as joint tenants.
21. The learned counsel for defendant No.5 has
further relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
17 O.S.No.26214/2014
reported (2025) SCC Online 877 in case of Angadi
Chandranna V/s. Shankar & others, wherein it is held
that, However, as per Hindu law, after partition, each
party gets a separate and distinct share and this share
becomes their self-acquired property and they have
absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or
bequeath it as they wish. Accordingly, the properties
bequeathed through partition, become the self-acquired
properties of the respective sharers.
22. The learned counsel for defendant No.4 has
relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in (1996) 8 SCC 54 in case of Sri. Narayan Bal and
others V/s. Sridhar Sutar and others, wherein it is
held that, With regard to the undivided interest of the
Hindu minor in joint family property, the provisions
afore-culled are beads of the same string and need to be
viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in
conjunction with each other. Each provision, and in
particular section 8 cannot be viewed in isolation. The
joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of
acting through its Karta and other adult members of the
18 O.S.No.26214/2014
family in management of the joint Hindu family
property. Thus section 8 in view of the express terms of
sections 6 and 12, would not be applicable where a joint
Hindu family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta
involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said
joint Hindu family property.
23. The learned counsel for defendant No.4 has
further relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2003) SCC online KAR 543 in case of
Fakirappa and others V/s. Mallappa and others,
wherein it is held that, the legal necessity for which the
suit property was sold as mentioned in the sale deed
was to improve the land and in the absence of any
surrounding circumstances to disbelieve this recital it
must be challenge to a sale is on the ground of want of
legal necessity, it is for the persons so claiming to bring
out in detail how the money was spent other than for
legal necessity because knowledge of such spending on
vices by the vendor would always be within the
knowledge of the plaintiffs and not the alienees. Where
such facts and circumstances are not brought out in
19 O.S.No.26214/2014
evidence, then the recitals in the sale deed ais the claim
of the alienee with greater force and court would be
justified in raising an inference against the plaintiffs
who contend otherwise.
25. The learned counsel for defendant No.4 has
further relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 in case of Vineeta Sharma
V/s. Rakesh Sharma, wherein it is held that, the rights
can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect
from 09.09.2005 with savings as provided in section
6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or
testamentary disposition which had taken place before
the 20th day of December, 2004.
26. In the lights of principles of laid down in above
decisions relied by respective counsels for parties, it is
fact that, in Ex.D.2 though it is mentioned properties
included in partition deed are ancestral and self
acquired properties of family members but there is no
other documents to say great grandfather of defendant
No.1 had acquired suit schedule property, so as to say,
suit property in the hand of defendant No.1 or plaintiff
20 O.S.No.26214/2014
is ancestral coparcenary property. It is fact that, suit
property allotted to defendant No.1 in partition as per
Ex.P.2. As such, in view of principles laid down in
Chander Sen and Utham case, suit schedule property
is self acquired property of defendant No.1.
27. It is fact that, in Ex.P.17 name of plaintiff
mentioned and she is represented by her father natural
guardian but that itself not sufficient to say suit
property is ancestral joint family property of plaintiff
merely because her name shown in sale deed. Contents
of sale deed and General Power of Attorney as per
Ex.P.22 wherein it is mentioned, plaintiff represented by
her natural guardian cannot be given much importance
to say suit property is ancestral joint family property of
plaintiff by overlooking provision Section 8 of Hindu
Succession Act. At the best, it can safely inferred from
Ex.P.17 and P.22 that, as abundant caution, in order to
avoid future complications and litigations, though suit
property is self acquired property of defendant No.1,
names of plaintiff and defendant No.2 might have
included in these documents.
21 O.S.No.26214/2014
28. In view of principles laid down in above
decisions and as per provisions of Section 8 of Hindu
Succession Act, suit property is self acquired property of
defendant No.1. The plaintiff cannot claim suit property
as joint family property of herself and defendant No.1.
The defendant No.4 has sufficiently proved, plaintiff has
no right over suit property and she cannot challenge
sale deed dated 09.01.2003 in view of Section 6 of
Hindu Succession Amended Act 2005. Because no right
in suit schedule property acquired by plaintiff as per
provisions of said section. Hence, I answer Issue No.1
in the negative, Issues No.3 and 4 in the affirmative
and Issue No.8 in the negative.
29. ISSUE NO.5 :- It is specific contention of
contesting defendants that, suit of the plaintiff is barred
by law of limitation. As already discussed, in view of
provision of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, suit
property is self acquired property of defendant No.1.
Sale deed as per Ex.P.17 was executed by defendant
No.3 being power of attorney holder of plaintiff and
defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit property on
22 O.S.No.26214/2014
09.01.2003. It is worth to note here that, once suit
schedule property is self acquired property of defendant
No.1 and plaintiff has no right in suit property, hence,
question of claiming her share in suit property does not
arise.
30. It is contended by defendants that, plaintiff
ought to have challenged sale deed as per Ex.P.17
within three years from date of attaining majority or
within three years from date of execution of sale deed.
It is argued on behalf of learned counsel for contesting
defendants that, suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred
by law of limitation.
31. The learned counsel for defendant No.4 in
support of his contention has relied upon decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2004) 8 SCC 785 in case of
Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma V/s. Gopalkrishnan
Nair an others, wherein it is held that, in view of the
express language used, it is clear that the transaction
entered into by the natural guardian in contravention of
sub-section (2) was not void but merely voidable at the
instance of the minor. To hold that the transaction in
23 O.S.No.26214/2014
violation of section 8(2) is void would not only be
contrary to the plain words of the statute but would also
deprive the minor of the right to affirm or ratify the
transaction upon attaining majority. It was also held
that a suit must be filed by a minor in order to avoid the
transaction within the period prescribed under article
60 of the Limitation Act.
32. The learned counsel for defendant No.5 has
relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in (2001) 6 SCC 163 in case of Vishwambar and
others V/s. Lakshminarayana and another, wherein
it is held that, Article 60 of the Limitation Act, prescribes
a period of three years for setting aside a transfer of
property made by the guardian of a ward, by the ward
who has attained majority and the period is to be
computed from the date when the ward attains majority.
Since the limitation started running from the dates when
the plaintiffs attained majority the prescribed period had
elapsed by the date of presentation of the plain so far as
digamber is concerned.
33. On the other hand, learned counsel for
plaintiff has argued that, suit property is joint family
24 O.S.No.26214/2014
property of plaintiff and plaintiff can file suit property
within 12 years from date of denial of her share in suit
property. The learned counsel for plaintiff in support of
his arguments has relied upon decision of Delhi High
Court reported in AIR 1982 Delhi 520 in case of
Nanak Chand and others Vs. Chander Kishore and
Others, wherein it is held that, separation from the
joint family involving severance in status with all its
legal consequences is quite distinct from the defacto
division into specific shares of the joint family property.
One is a matter of individual decision, the desire to
sever himself and enjoy his hitherto undefined and
unspecified share separately from the others; whilst the
other a natural resultant from his decision is the
division and separation of his share which may be
arrived at either by private agreement or by arbitration
appointed by the parties or in the last resort by the
court. One should not confuse the severance of status,
with the allotment of shares. Therefore, a division in
status takes place when a member expresses his
intention to become separate unequivocally and
25 O.S.No.26214/2014
unambiguously, and makes it known to other members
of the family from whom he seeks to separate.
34. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in AIR 2022 SC Online 556 in Case of K.C. Laxmana
Vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, wherein it is held that,
the parties to suit are Hindus and are governed by
Mitkashara Law. The plaintiff has challenged the
alienation made by his defendant-father, under
settlement/gift deed which is a joint family property, in
favour of the defendant alienee. Article 58 of Second
schedule to the Limitation Act provides for the period of
limitation to file a suit to obtain any other declaration.
Article 109 is the Special Article to apply where the
alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the
property is ancestral and the parties are governed by
Mitakshara Law. Generally, where a statute contains
both general provision as well as specific provision, the
later must prevail. Therefore, Article 58 has no
application to case. The word ‘alienation’ in Article109
includes ‘gift’. In order to attract Article 109, the
26 O.S.No.26214/2014
following conditions have to be fulfilled, namely, (1) the
parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the
suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at
the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to
ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over
possession of the property alienated by the father. This
article provides that the period of limitation is twelve
years from the date the alilenee takes possession of the
property.
35. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision reported in AIR 2024 Online Delhi
125 in case of Santhosh Bhasin Vs. Umari Malhotra
(dead) by their LR’s, wherein it is held that, right to file
suit claiming partition was covered by Article 113,
namely residuary clause, since there was no specific
article in schedule to limitation act that covered such
suit.
36. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.11795/2025 in case of Shanti Devi (dead)
by LR’s Vs. jagan Devi and Others, wherein it is held
27 O.S.No.26214/2014
that, plaintiff could not be said to have executed sale
deed. Therefore, plaintiff could have maintain suit
within period of 12 years from date of knowledge.
37. It is pertinent to note here that, principles
relied by learned counsel for plaintiff applicable only
when plaintiff able to establish suit schedule property is
ancestral and joint family property of herself and
defendants No.1 and 2. Likewise, principles laid down
in decisions relied by learned counsel for contesting
defendants applicable only when suit property is
property belonging to minor. Herein the case, suit
property is not joint family property of plaintiff and also
it was not property exclusively belonging to minor
plaintiff. On the other hand, as per provision Section 8
of Hindu Succession Act, it is absolute property of
defendant No.1, who acquired it in partition and he
being absolute owner of same sold under sale deed
along with plaintiff and defendant No.2.
38. As already discussed, names of plaintiff and
defendant No.2 included in General Power of Attorney or
in sale deed just to avoid future complications. Once,
28 O.S.No.26214/2014
plaintiff has no right in suit property, question of filing
suit by plaintiff within time prescribed under law does
not arise. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the negative.
39. ISSUE NO.6 :- Defendant No.4 has contended,
he is bonafide purchaser of suit property. While cross
examining D.W.1, an attempt was made to extract from
mouth of witness that, at the time of agreement for sale
plaintiff was minor, same has been admitted by witness
as true. The D.W.1 has deposed, he did not know, no
person can authorized to execute General Power of
Attorney on behalf of minor. The D.W.1 has further
deposed, in sale deed and General Power of Attorney,
plaintiff shown as minor represented by natural
guardian.
40. The learned counsel for plaintiff has argued
that, without proper verification of documents and
without any due diligence, defendant No.4 purchased
suit property under illegal sale deed and General Power
of Attorney. The learned counsel for plaintiff in support
of his contention has relied upon decision reported in
AIR 2004 P and H 6 in case of Lakhwinder Singh,
29 O.S.No.26214/2014
minor represented Lekh Raj Vs. Miss Paramjit Kaur
D/o. Avtar Singh, wherein it is held that, plaintiff was
minor at the time of execution of power of attorney.
Before sale of share of minor mother had not obtained
permission. Defendant No.4 has also not made
necessary enquiry in that regard. It is settled law that,
transferee must make all reasonable and diligent
enquiry regarding capacity of transferor and necessity to
alienate estate of minor.
41. It is worth to note here that, principles laid
down in above decision applicable only when property
under sale is property belonging to minor. Under said
circumstances, it is necessary to obtain permission of
court under provision of under Section 8 of Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act.
42. Herein the case, defendant No.4 after verifying
old records of rights, General Power of Attorney entered
into transaction with power of attorney holder of
plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit
property. Even in sale deed, it is clearly mentioned,
originally property belonged to one Krishnappa, after his
30 O.S.No.26214/2014
death there was partition among sons of Krishnappa,
suit property allotted to defendant No.1 in said
partition.
43. In view of contents of sale deed and revenue
records, inference can be drawn that, defendant no.4
under given circumstances had made reasonable
enquiry in respect of suit property as ordinary prudent
man would have done.
44. In sale deed it is clearly mentioned, property
sold for necessities. Fact to be noted here, the defendant
No.1 who is absolute owner of suit property, though
appeared before court has not filed written statement
and contested the case thereby denied recital of sale
deed wherein it is mentioned, property sold for legal
necessities and sale consideration amount received.
45. In this regard, the learned counsel for
contesting defendants has relied upon decision Hon’ble
Supreme Court in (1999) 3 SCC 457 in case of Iswar
Bhai C. Patel V/s. Harihar Behera and another,
wherein it is held that, Having not entered into the
witness box and having not presented himself for cross-
31 O.S.No.26214/2014
examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn
against him on the basis of principles contained in
illustration (g) of section 114 of the Evidence Act. As early
as in 1927, the Privy Council in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh
V/s. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1927 Privy Council
230, took note of a practice prevalent in those days of not
examining the parties as a witness in the case and
leaving it to the other party to call that party so that the
other party may be treated as the witness of the first
party…. This is thought to be clever, but it is a bad and
degrading practice. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 in the
affirmative.
46. ISSUE NO.7 :- It is contention of contesting
defendants that, plaintiff has not properly valued
subject matter of suit and she has not paid proper court
fees. The plaintiff having claim suit property is ancestral
and joint family property and also claiming she is in
joint possession of same has valued subject matter of
suit Rs.30,00,000/- and paid court fees as per Section
35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
Further plaintiff having sought for declaration in respect
32 O.S.No.26214/2014
of sale deed dated 09.01.2003 has paid court fees as per
Section 24(D) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act.
47. It is worth to note here that, defendants have
produced document to say already suit property was
converted into non-agricultural purpose and defendants
have put up multi stored building over suit property.
The defendants have produced photos and building plan
before the court. The P.W.1 in her cross-examination
has admitted after purchase of property defendant No.4
raised four sky scrapers. It is further admitted by P.W.1
that, now in said 20 acres of land there are 5 multi
stored apartments. Even in records of rights relied by
plaintiff in respect of suit property it is mentioned, suit
property was converted into non-agricultural purpose in
the year 2002-03 itself.
48. It is fact that, in sale deed as per Ex.P.22 it is
clearly mentioned about handing over of possession of
suit property to purchaser. Plaintiff is not in joint
possession and enjoyment of suit property. As such,
plaintiff has not properly valued subject matter of suit
33 O.S.No.26214/2014
and also not paid proper court fees. Hence, I answer
Issue No.7 in the affirmative.
49. ISSUES NO.2 AND 9 :- As these issues are
inter-related to each other and involves common
appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on
one issue are bearing on other issue, in order to avoid
repetition of facts and for convenience sake, both issues
are taken together for common discussion.
50. It is pertinent to note here that, by virtue of
provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, suit
property is self acquired property of defendant No.1. The
defendant No.1 along with defendant No.2 and
representing minor plaintiff sold suit property through
his power of attorney holder in favour of defendant
No.4. The plaintiff has no birth right in suit property as
suit property is not ancestral coparcenary property of
plaintiff. As such, plaintiff cannot claim her right and
share in suit property. Once plaintiff has no subsisting
right in suit property and she has no birth right in suit
property, she cannot claim she is entitled for share in
suit property as per provisions of Amended Section 6 of
34 O.S.No.26214/2014
Hindu Succession Act, 2005. As and when, plaintiff has
no right or interest in suit property question of she
claiming sale deed dated 09.01.2003 executed in favour
of defendant No.4 not binding on her does not arise.
Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in plaint.
Hence, I answer Issues No.2 and 9 in the negative.
51. ISSUES No.10 :- In view of the above said
findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 9, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed &
computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced
in the open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2026).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Smt. R. Asha 03-03-2015.
35 O.S.No.26214/2014
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Exs.P.1 : RTC.
to P.16
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 09.01.2003.
Exs.P.18: Encumbrance certificates.
and P.19
Ex.P.20 : Family tree.
Ex.P.21 : Original SSLC marks card.
Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney
dated 10.10.2002.
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of Development Agreement
dated 02.09.2010.
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of the Second Supplemental
agreement to the Development Agreement
dated 09.05.2014.
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : Himanshu Shekhar Singh 11-06-2024.
D.W.2 : Nishan Moham 30-06-2025.
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Mutation register.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of partition deed
dated 04.09.1990.
Ex.D.3 : Settlement agreement.
Ex.D.4 : N.A. Order dated 07.12.2002.
Ex.D.5 : Occupancy certificate.
Ex.D.6 : Sketch.
Exs.D.7 : RTC.
to D.14
36 O.S.No.26214/2014
Ex.D.15 : Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.D.16 : Tax paid receipt.
Exs.D.17 : Photographs.
to D.24
Ex.D.25 : CD.
Ex.D.26 : Mutation register.
Ex.D.27 : Certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.D.28 : General Power of Attorney dated 17.2.2024.
Ex.D.29 : Approved building plan.
Ex.D.30 : Revised building plan.
Exs.D.31 : Engineer certificate.
and D.32
Ex.D.33 : Certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.D.34 : Authorization letter dated 29.04.2025.
Ex.D.35 : Agreement of sale dated 02.09.2002.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.