Karnataka HC Upholds Decree: Brother’s Sale Of Plaintiff’s Partitioned Site Was Not Binding On Him

The plaintiff, M. Venkateshappa, claimed that an oral partition in 1988 allotted the suit property to him and that a compromise decree in a later partition suit confirmed his entitlement.

He sought a declaration of ownership, a declaration that a 1992 sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was not binding on him, and an injunction against interference with his possession.

Defendant No. 1 admitted the partition but asserted that the property had been sold with the plaintiff’s consent for his financial needs.

Defendant No. 2 disputed the plaintiff’s claim and raised, among other matters, limitation and maintainability.

The defendants did not testify or produce documents.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, and defendant No. 2 appealed under Section 96 CPC.

The appeal was considered under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It applies the principles that a party asserting a right to alienate property must establish that right, and that a plaintiff who proves title may obtain declaratory relief against an alienation by a person without authority to convey.

The Court also treated the compromise decree and the parties’ evidence as relevant to establishing the plaintiff’s entitlement.

The High Court upheld the finding that the oral partition allotted the property to the plaintiff and that the compromise petition in O.S. No. 4545/1993 reaffirmed that allotment.

Defendant No. 1 had admitted the plaintiff’s entitlement, while the defendants’ assertion of authority to sell was unsupported by testimony or documents; accordingly, the Court found no established basis for defendant No. 1’s alienation.

It rejected the objection that possession had to be sought, reasoning that the plaintiff had established ownership and challenged a sale by a person with no right to convey.

It also rejected the limitation plea, finding that the defendants had not established that the suit was time-barred.

Finally, the Court declined remand because the defendants had received repeated opportunities to cross-examine PW1 and present evidence but had failed to use them.

The decree declaring the plaintiff the absolute owner, holding the sale deed non-binding on him, and restraining interference with his possession was affirmed; interim orders were discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.