IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. ___ OF 2023

Shree Choudeshwari Temple Trust,

Bhavanthi Street, Banerghatta Rd,
Bangalore - 560029
Represented by its Managing Trustee ……………………….APPELLANT/DEFENDANT No. 5

versus

1. Parvathi, W/o Chowdayya,

27th Main, Sector 5, HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560102 …………………………………………..RESPONDENT No. 1/PLAINTIFF

2. Padmavathi W/o Late Srinivas

4/45, Bhavani Layout, BH Post,
Bangalore - 560029 ………………………………....RESPONDENT No. 2/DEFENDANT No. 1

3. Sukumari D/o Padmavathi

4/45, Bhavani Layout, BH Post,
Bangalore - 560029 …………………………………RESPONDENT No. 3/DEFENDANT No. 2

4. Uma D/o Padmavathi

4/45, Bhavani Layout, BH Post,
Bangalore - 560029 …………………………...…….RESPONDENT No. 4/DEFENDANT No. 3

5. Usha D/o Padmavathi

4/45, Bhavani Layout, BH Post,
Bangalore - 560029 ………………………………....RESPONDENT No. 5/DEFENDANT No. 4
The undersigned, on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant No. 5, hereby submits the following
points in this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
contesting the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2009 rendered by the learned XCth City Civil
Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 1358/2005:

1. The Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff initiated suit O.S. No. 1358/2005 before the XCth City Civil
Court, Bengaluru against Respondents No. 2 to 5/Defendants No. 1 to 4 and the
Appellant/Defendant No. 5, seeking partition of a 1/5th share in the property detailed in the
plaint, along with separate possession.

2. The property outlined in Sy No. 2116, Bommanahalli Village, originally belonged to Shree
Choudeshwari Temple Trust (Appellant/Defendant No. 5), as per a gift deed dated 16668/1908
executed by the former manager of the temple, encompassing the entire 2 acres 53 cents of land
in Sy No. 2116.

3. In 2002, Respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 1 and Respondents No. 3 to 5/Defendants No. 2 to
4 purportedly transferred their shares in the said property to the Appellant/Defendant No. 5
through a sale deed numbered 1666/2002. The sale consideration for Respondent No.
1/Plaintiff's 1/5th share, amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs, was deposited under the Kalpavraksha
Scheme in SIB, Christ University Branch, Bengaluru.

4. Despite being a minor at the time of the sale deed's execution, Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff,
upon attaining majority, filed the current suit, contending that her natural guardian had alienated
her share without obtaining necessary court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956.

5. The Appellant/Defendant No. 5 contested the suit, arguing, among other points, that
Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff had no rightful claim over the property due to the prior gift deed of
1908. The 2002 sale deed was deemed a measure to avoid litigation. Furthermore, Respondent
No. 1/Plaintiff, having benefitted from the sale consideration, was estopped from disputing the
sale deed's validity.
6. However, the Trial Court, through the impugned judgment and decree, partially decreed the
suit, ruling that the sale deed contravened Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship
Act, 1956, and hence was not binding on Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff. The Trial Court ordered
partition by metes and bounds, allotting 1/5th share to Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, while also
directing the recovery of Rs. 8 lakhs along with interest at a rate of 6% p.a. from 24/04/2002 in
favor of the Appellant/Defendant No. 5, with a charge on Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff's 1/5th
share.

7. In light of the foregoing, the Appellant/Defendant No. 5 is lodging this appeal, aggrieved by
the aforementioned judgment and decree, on various grounds, including those stated herein.

GROUNDS:
.9. The Trial Court demonstrated a significant error by decreeing the partition suit without duly
considering the substantial evidence presented by the Appellant/Defendant No. 5, indicating that
the property outlined in the plaint schedule rightfully belonged to the temple trust as per the 1908
gift deed.

10. The Trial Court neglected to acknowledge that neither Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff nor her
predecessors-in-title possessed any legitimate claim or interest in the subject property at any
juncture, thereby lacking the standing to pursue a partition suit.

11. The Trial Court mistakenly assumed that the 2002 sale deed constituted an acknowledgment
of title favoring Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff and her predecessors. However, it's crucial to note
that the sale deed was solely executed to circumvent unwarranted legal disputes and did not
confer any legitimate title upon the vendors.

12. The Trial Court should have recognized that Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, having derived
benefits from the sale consideration deposited in her name, is estopped from contesting the
validity of the sale deed on the grounds of being a minor at the relevant period.
13. The Trial Court's determination regarding the necessity of prior court permission under
Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for the sale deed is in direct
contradiction with established legal precedent, which stipulates that no such authorization is
requisite for the alienation of a minor's undivided share in the joint family property.

14. The impugned judgment and decree are otherwise flawed, unlawful, and warrant reversal.

PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Uphold the present appeal and overturn the challenged judgment and decree dated 03/07/2009
rendered by the learned XCth City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 1358/2005;

b) Completely dismiss suit O.S. No. 1358/2005;

c) Award costs incurred in the appeal; and/or

d) Issue any other order(s) deemed appropriate and just by this Hon'ble Court, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the pursuit of justice.
Bangalore

Dated: 12.03.2024

Counsel for Appellant

VERIFICATION
I affirm under oath that the contents of the aforementioned appeal are true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge and belief, verified at Bangalore on this 12th day of March, 2024.
APPELLANT

THROUGH

Advocate Ms. LDC