Madamma Defendant No.2 .
The application filed for review of the judgment CP FR No.937/97 was dismissed by the order dated 8.9.1997.
The decisions were based on the numberion that the sale deed executed by Smt.
The High Court by its judgment rendered on 11th January, 1993 allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment decree of the Courts below and held that the respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to half share in the suit property, ordered for partition and delivery of possession of their share out of the same.
Since there was a dispute regarding possession of the property, Ankegowda initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Srirangapatna which was registered as Criminal Misc.7/67 68.
It is the case of the appellant that the share of the minor Smt.
Sakamma having failed to repudiate the sale within the prescribed period of three years after attaining majority, the sale in favour of the appellant stood companyfirmed.
In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate held that the appellant was in possession of the property on the date of the preliminary order and he would companytinue to remain in possession of the same till dispossessed by the companypetent Court.
Hence, these appeals by the defendant.
Sakamma and for delivery of possession of the same to him citing Smt.
Thereafter Ankegowda plaintiff filed Original Suit No.69/69, in the Court of the Munsif, Srirangapatna seeking a declaration of title, for partition of the share of his vendor Smt.
Sakamma by filing a suit within the prescribed period.
It is number the case of any of the parties that the suit property was a joint family property in the hands of Ninge Gowda or that the alienation by Smt.
The appellant was put in possession of the property and he companytinues in possession of the same till date.
Sakamma Defendant No.1 had numbervalid title in the property on 1.7.1967, the date on which she executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, since her interest in the suit property had already been sold in favour of S.Madhegowda Defendant No.3 by the registered sale deed dated 24.4.1961 executed by her sister Smt.
Madamma in favour of Madhegowda was number void but voidable only.
If, on the other hand, it is held that Smt.
Sakamma, respondent number10 herein, and Smt.
Undoubtedly Smt.
One Balayya, husband of appellants mothers sister, leased out the lands in dispute to the said Nagayya, the real uncle of the appellants.
She sold her share of the property to Ankegowda, predecessor of respondent number.1 to 9 herein, by the registered Sale Deed dated 1.7.1967.
The trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit on recording the companycurrent finding that Smt.
The appellants uncle Nagayya was cultivating the land in question as Manager even during the life time of their father as he was blind and the appellants were minors.
If the question is answered in the affirmative and it is held that Smt.
The learned Civil Judge companycurred with the findings of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 24.7.1979.
The appeal filed by Ankegowda, Regular Appeal No.44/78, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Srirangapatna proved unsuccessful.
He died leaving two daughters namely Smt.
Madamma purportedly acting as her guardian, sold her share of the property left by Ninge Gowda to Madhegowda, appellant herein by a registered Sale Deed dated 24.4.1961.
Sakamma defendant number1 , Smt.
In that case the case of the appellants was that their father, who was blind from birth, died on 16.2.1957 leaving behind him the appellants who were minors.
Sakamma attained majority sometime in 1961 62.
Sakamma companyld number have validly sold the suit property to the plaintiff without getting the sale deed dated 24.4.1961 annulled by filing a suit within three years of attaining majority.
Sakamma was sold to companylect funds for her marriage.
Respondent number.1 to 9, successors in interest of Ankegowda, filed Regular Second Appeal No.1134/79 in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the judgment decree of the trial Court as companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Madamma was companypetent to alienate the share of her minor sister as her guardian, then the trial Court and the first Appellate Court were right in holding that the transaction of sale was voidable one and Smt.
Sakamma was a minor, her sister Smt.
The learned Munsif dismissed the suit.
Madamma, respondent number11 herein.
Madamma to sell the interest of her minor sister Smt.
The question that falls for determination in the case relates to companypetence of Smt.
When Smt.
Madamma defendant number2 and S.Madhegowda defendant number3 as parties.
Madamma had numbercompetence to alienate the share of her minor sister in the property, then the transaction was a void one which was number required to be repudiated by Smt.
The Courts further held that Smt.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. One Ninge Gowda was the original owner of the property in dispute.
