BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11938/2022

MUNISWAMY NAIDU AND ORS. …PETITIONERS

VERSUS
CHANNAMMA AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
Suit Schedule Property : 21 guntas in Sy.No. 41/3 at Kullur Village
We were Defendant Nos. 4 and 582

Date Event Reference

NIL Family Tree is at Page 50. P/1

Pitchaka Ramappa is alleged propositus Page 50
Petitioners are descendants of Pitchaka Venkataramaiah
R5-R8 are descendants of Pitchaka Venkatappa through
his daughter Gowramma
R1-R4 are purchasers of suit property [not part of family]
08.11.1922/ PETITIONER’S CASE WRT SUIT SCHEDULE
10.03.1969 PROPERTY:
Pitchaka Venkataramaiah [predecessor of Petitioners]
purchased land measuring 5 Acres 6 Guntas. by way of a
registered sale deed dated 08.11.1922 P/2
After death of said Venkataramaiah, aforementioned land Page 51-
divided between P1 and predecessor of P2-P4 by 55
registered partition deed dated 10.03.1969, and [Partition
Petitioners/their predecessors were in possession and in deed, Ex-
enjoyment of the same as absolute owners D21 @
Note : This contention in LOD doesn’t seem to be in Page 149]
respect of suit schedule property.
30.01.1951 RESPONDENT’S CASE WRT SUIT SCHEDULE
PROPERTY: [Also refer 04.10.1976]

Land measuring 21 guntas in Sy. No. 41/3 fell to the

share of Pitchaka Venkatappa in family partition and he
along with his wife (Salamma) enjoyed the property for
25 years.
Said Salamma gifted said 21 guntas in favour of her
daughter, Gowramma [predecessor of R5-R8] vide
registered gift deed dated 30.01.1951.
1972 Predecessor of R1-R4 along with other persons filed suits
[O.S. No. 07/1972 and O.S. No. 232/1972] seeking relief
for cart track against the Petitioners and others.
Said Predecessor of R1-R4 in their pleadings admit that
the Petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the
property in question. [Only mentioned in LOD]
The evidence in OS 276/1985 also acknowledge that the
Petitioners herein are in possession of property in
question. @ Page 116
04.10.1976/ It is the further case of R1-R4, that Gowramma, along
24.02.1979 with her sons, namely, Honorappa [R8] and B.M Gopala
[R5], executed a sale agreement dated 04.10.1976 to sell
certain properties including, the property in question, in
favour of one Venkataramappa [who is the predecessor of
R1-R4]

It is their further case that Sale deed dated 24.02.1979

came to be executed in favour of said Venkataramappa
by Gowramma along with her abovementioned two sons.
24.02.1979 Gowramma had also executed an agreement to sale in
favour of one Govindappa in respect of other properties
which were allegedly gifted to her by her mother,
Salamma under the gift deed dated 30.01.1951.
1982 Said Govindappa filed a suit for specific performance
[O.S. No. 58/1982] against Smt. Gowramma and others.
The said was decreed and confirmed in first Appeal but
dismissed in Second Appeal and then SLP was
dismissed.
Refer date 13.12.2007 for more details
1983 P-1 along with the predecessor of P2-P4 filed a suit P/3
Decree bearing O.S No. 328/1983 against Gowramma praying, Page 56-
passed on inter alia, for declaration of title and injunction, to 63
03.08.1985 declare that the alleged gift deed dated 30.01.1951 is not [Copy of
binding upon them. plaint is
Prayer @ Para 7, page 58 from page
Schedule of properties @ Page 59 56-60,
Decree findings @ Page 62 Decree is
from page
In O.S. No. 328/1983, Gowramma consented for a decree 61-63]
in favour of the plaintiffs @ Page 11, para 10
20.07.1985 Abovementioned Govindappa and Venkatarapmma had P/4
filed applications seeking impleadment in the O.S. No. Page 64-
328/1983, which came to be dismissed by the Ld. Trial 75
Court observing that they were not proper and necessary
parties to the said suit.
Reasoning @ Para 15, Page 73 onwards
1985 Venkatramappa [Predecessor of the R1-R4] filed a suit P/5
[O.S. No. 198/1985] [present matter arises out of this Page 76-
suit] against the Petitioners/their predecessors and the 83
R5-R8, praying, inter-alia, declaration of title, and
declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 328/1983 does
not bind them and injunction etc.
Prayer and Schedule @ Page 81
1985 Venkatramappa [Predecessor of the R1-R4] and one P/6
another filed another suit [O.S No. 276/1985] seeking Page 84-
relief for cart track against one other person [not related 87
to us]. It has been admitted in the pleadings that the Copy of
Petitioners herein are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint
property in question. The sketch (Ex D18), the
Commissioner report (Ex. D-19) and Mahazar (Ex.D-20)
also acknowledge that the Petitioners herein are in
possession of the property in question.
29.10.1986 Gowramma filed WS in the O.S. No. 198/1985 P/7
 - seeking dismissal of the suit. Page 88-
- denied that Salamma (her mother) had any title to gift 91
the property in question.
1998 PW4 in O.S No. 198/1985 [who is the brother of the
Plaintiff therein and also a co-purchaser of one of the
properties (part of the alleged gift deed)], attested as a
witness in the alleged sale deed, and deposed (in his
deposition in O.S No. 276/1985 filed by the Plaintiff) that
the Petitioners herein are in possession and enjoyment of
the property in question (Ex. D17). [ONLY MENTIONED
IN LOD] Reference to PW 4 in OS 198/1985 is @ Page
133,134

Reference maybe made to page 137 wrt where

admission by PW1 and PW2 in OS 276/1985 is
mentioned regarding possession of Sy.No.41 by
Petitioners
29.06.1999 Petitioners and D2 therein [R-8 herein] filed WS in O.S. P/8
No. 198/1985 Page 92-
- seeking dismissal of the suit. 98
- contended that the property in question was not owned
by the Gowramma and further that the said aspect was
within the knowledge of the plaintiffs/predecessor of
the R1-R4 since in one of the previous cases [cart track
matter], they have admitted that the property in
question was of the family of Gowramma
20.09.2000 The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit [O.S. P/9 @ pg.
No.198/1985] filed by the predecessor of the R1-R4 with 99-150
cost.

Issues @ Page 105-106

On partition between Pitchaka Venkatappa and his two
brothers @ para 15 onwards till para 17 [after para
19], Page 115-117
On gift deed @ para 18-19, Page 117-119, para 29
(Page 130], Para 37 [Page 136],
On sale deed @ para 20-21, page 119, para 30-34 [Page
132],

Findings : Para 38, page 137 onwards2

2001 The predecessor of the R1-R4 filed a first R.A. No.
9/2001
21.11.2005 R.A. No.9/2001 allowed P/10
Issues @ Page 158 Page 151-
For partition relied on admission by defendants @ Page 168
160
For gift deed relied on Section 90 Evidence Act @ Page
161
On sale deed @ Page 165
2006 Petitioners filed R.S.A. No. 739/2006 before the High P/11
Court challenging judgement in R.A. No.9/2001 Page 169-
180
2006 R5-R8 herein also filed R.S.A. No. 741/2006 before the
 High Court challenging judgement in R.A. No.9/2001
Both aforementioned R.S.A.(s) were clubbed and heard
together
13.12.2007 In other RSA No. 1207/2006 c/w RSA No. 1216/2004 P/12
[arising out of O.S. No. 58/1982 filed by one Page 181-
Govindappa, refer date 1982 above], the High Court 203
held that:

- Para 15, Page 197: entire extent of 5 acres was

purchased by Venkatramaiah [predecessor of
Petitioners]. Courts below casually recorded partition
without any documents to show family was joint family
property
- Para 20, Page 201: Gowramma [the predecessor of
R5-R8] did not derive any title pursuant to the alleged
gift deed executed by Salamma (mother of Gowramma].
- Para 20, Page 201: Cannot be said that decree in O.S.
328/1983 is collusive

NOTE:
1) These RSAs were filed by Petitioners and Gowramma
along with her sons, since judgements in both OS and
RFA were against them]
2) Property therein : 2 acres 23 guntas in Sy.No.30 @
Page 186
3) Mention of gift deed @ Page 197
4) SLPs against these orders dismissed on
15.03.2010
30.11.2019 The Petitioners filed an application in R.S.A. No.
739/2006 seeking permission to produce additional
evidence/documents i.e., judgment dated 13.12.2007
passed in R.S.A. No. 1207/2004 by a Co-ordinate bench
of the High Court. However, the said application was not
considered before passing the impugned order.
21.12.2020 Vide the impugned order, the Hon'ble High Court
dismissed both R.S.A. No. 739/2006 and 741/2006.
Substantial question of law @ Page 19
Reasoning @ Page 25 onwards