Case: DODDAMUNIYAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. MUNISWAMY

2. The facts in brief culled out and relevant for the present purpose which manifest from the record that Shri Chikkanna (since deceased) was the propositus of the joint family. He had three sons, namely, Pillappa, Venkataramanappa and Muniyappa (respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9). Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no. 10 are the sons of Pillappa (defendant no. 2) and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of Shri Venkataramanappa (defendant no. 3).3. The above named propositus of the joint family Chikkanna purchased the suit schedule property from his sister Thayamma. The genealogy of the family of the respondents (plaintiffs) is asIt could be seen from the genealogy that respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 are the grandsons of propositus Chikkanna(deceased). The appeal has been preferred by appellant (defendant no. 1) who is a purchaser of the subject property involved in the suit. Respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of late Chikkanna had jointly sold the suit property in favour of one Muthappa under a sale deed dated 2 nd December, 1950. It was stipulated in the sale deed that in the event of the sale of the suit property by the above named Muthappa, the suit property shall be reconveyance in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4) at the price offered by the purchaser and on failure of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendant nos. 2 to 4), the above named Muthappa would be free to sell the suit property to any other purchaser. The property was later purchased under the sale deed dated 30 th September, 1954 by one Muniswamy @ Annaiyappa from whom the appellant purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 29 th January, 1962.5. Respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4), sons of Chikkanna filed a suit on 27 th June, 1964 bearing no. O.S. No. 297 of 1964 against the appellant(defendant no. 1) including other defendants seeking decree of reconveyance of the property in terms of the clause of reconveyance against the appellant and directing the defendants to execute reconveyance deed in their favour in respect of the suit property which came to be dismissed by the trial Court.6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) filed Regular Appeal No. 128 of 1967 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27 th August, 1969 that came to be challenged by the appellant(defendant no. 1) in a Regular Second Appeal No. 69 of 1970 which came to be dismissed and thus the decree became final.7. The matter thereafter proceeded for execution of the decree in Execution No. 121 of 1972 and in sequel to the Order passed in the execution petition, the reconveyance deed was executed by the Court in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) and possession of the suit property was handed over to respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) by the Court under delivery receipt dated 7 th March, 1974(Exhibit P-6).8. The appellant (defendant no. 1) filed Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore. In Execution Appeal, respondent no. 9(defendant no. 4) with the knowledge of respondent nos. 7 and 8(defendant nos. 2 and 3) entered into a compromise dated 25 th March, 1976(Exhibit P-8) with the appellant. The extract of the compromise (Exhibit P-8) entered between the parties is quoted hereunder:IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE DISRICT: BANGALORE Ex. Appeal No. 2/1974Appellant:Pillappa and othersUnder Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 107 C.P.C., the appellant and respondents submit that they have compromised the matter as hereunder:1. Item No. 1 of the suit schedule shall belong to the respondents and is in their possession of. Out of item No. 2 of the suit schedule on extent of land measuring thirty-five feet East to West, the measurement taken from the Eastern edge of Item no. 2 and twenty-six feet North South shall belong to the appellant as absolute owner thereof and the Respondents shall have no right whatsoever in the same. The rest of item No. 2, of plaint schedule property belongs to the respondents absolutely. Parties have taken possession of their respective portions as indicated above.The appellant and Respondents pray that the appeal may kindly be partly allowed in terms of the above compromise. Parties bear their own costs.The Execution Appeal in terms of the compromise was decided and part premises in terms of the compromise was handed over to the appellant, indisputedly, respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 10 (original plaintiffs) were neither parties to the said compromise nor their consent was obtained. Having attained majority, respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 jointly filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 5575 of 1980 arraying the appellant(defendant no. 1) and respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) for declaration that the said compromise decree was not binding on them and for permanent injunction contending inter alia that the said compromise had been entered into without their knowledge and consent of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10(plaintiffs), and respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) having no right whatsoever to enter into compromise and the said compromise had no legal sanctity which was entered into between them without their consent and knowledge and it did not bind them and, therefore, they were entitled for their right in the suit property being a joint family property.10. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 19 th June, 1999 holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that it was the joint family property in the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) and held that they were the joint owners of the suit property.11. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19 th June, 1999 came to be challenged by respondent nos. 1 to 6 in Regular First Appeal No. 611 of 1999 before the High Court. The High Court vide judgment and decree dated 31 st March, 2005 allowed the appeal, decreed the suit and held that the subject property was joint family property in the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendant nos. 2 to 4) and the compromise would not bind the plaintiffs(sons of defendant nos. 2 and 3) which is a subject matter of appeal at the instance of the appellant(defendant no. 1) in the original proceedings.

Court's reasoning:
22. After the restoration of possession of the subject property on 7 th March, 1974, the title of the property reassumed its original character of joint family property in the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendants nos. 2 to 4) and has created the right of inheritance of respondent nos. 1 to 6 in the joint family property and indisputedly, they were neither consulted nor made parties to the said compromise.Indisputedly, respondent nos. 1 to 6 (original plaintiffs) were not parties to the compromise dated 25 th March, 1976 and the subject property at that time was joint family property and the compromise entered into between the parties would not bind the rights of respondent nos. 1 to 6(grandsons of propositus Chikkanna).25. It is an admitted fact on record that the property was purchased by Chikkanna from his sister Thayamma and respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4) have inherited the property after death of propositus Chikkanna. Respondent nos. 1 to 6 are children of respondent nos. 7 and 8(defendants nos. 2 and 3), it would be an ancestral property in their hands and indisputedly respondent nos. 1 to 6 are neither parties to the proceedings nor consented when the compromise decree was executed in Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 (Exhibit P-8) dated 7 th March, 1974 and admittedly the same would not be binding upon their share over the property.26. It goes without saying that the compromise would bind the share of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4) as they are party to the compromise which was entered into Execution Appeal No. 2 of 1974 and has been rightly recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment. We find no error in a finding of fact which calls for any further interference of this Court.27. We find substance on the submission of learnedcounsel for the respondents that after the decree of the suit was put in execution a deed reconveyancing the subject property to respondent nos. 7 to 9 (defendants nos. 2 to 4) was executed and were put in possession on 7 th March, 1974, mere filing of an Execution Appeal would not take away the efficacy of the reconveyance decree already passed and the execution stands effected and the right, title and interest in the subject property could not be defeated by the compromise to which respondent nos. 1 to 6 (plaintiffs) were not parties and as such, the said compromise would not bind the share of respondent nos. 1 to 6.e submission of learned counsel for the appellant(s) that respondent nos. 1 to 6 failed to establish the existence of the property in the hands of any member in the joint family property or give rise to any presumption that the property is coparcenary propertyis misplaced for the reason that the factual matrix of which a detailed reference has been made indicates that the property in the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 9(defendants nos. 2 to 4) of a joint family and confers on the property the character of coparcenary property in the hands of respondent nos. 1 to 6.