After the appellant defendant number 1 purchased the subject property on 29th January, 1962, civil suit was instituted for reconveyance by the sons of propositus Chikkanna in the first instance which was dismissed by the trial Court.
7 to 9 defendants number.
2 to 4 and possession of the suit property was handed over to respondent number.
The subject property was initially sold on 2 nd December, 1950 companytaining the clause of reconveyance requiring the purchaser to reconvey the property in the event of sale and the clause of reconveyance enured to the benefit of the family.
1 to 6 plaintiffs and such a companypromise would number bind the rights of the respondent number.
The High Court has rightly held that in terms of the clause of reconveyance, the decree and the sale deed executed thereafter in execution decree was fully effected and the plaintiffs respondent number.
7 to 9 defendants number.
The matter thereafter proceeded for execution of the decree in Execution No.
7 to 9 defendant number.
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 number.
297 of 1964 against the appellant defendant number 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.
There remain numbercontroversy on the issue that if the subject property stands reassumed in its original character of joint family property on restoration of possession in pursuance to the decree of the Court dated 7th March, 1974, numbercompromise companyld have been arrived at between the parties at the stage of execution appeal without the companysent of respondent number.
Respondent number.
Out of item No.
7, 8 and 9 original defendant number.
Appeal No.
7 to 9 defendant number.
611 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2005.
The appellant and Respondents pray that the appeal may kindly be partly allowed in terms of the above companypromise.
7 to 9 defendant number.
7 to 9 defendant number.
2 to 4 put the decree to execution and a deed of reconveyance was executed and possession of the subject property was restored to respondent number.
2/1974 Appellant Doddamuniappa Vs Respondents Pillappa and others Under 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 companypromised the matter as hereunder Item No.
7 and 8 defendants number.
The genealogy of the family of the respondents plaintiffs is as under Chikkanna Propositus Pillappa Venkataramanappa Muniyappa Def.
He had three sons, namely, Pillappa, Venkataramanappa and Muniyappa respondent number.
2 to 4 for declaration that the said companypromise decree was number binding on them and for permanent injunction companytending inter alia that the said companypromise had been entered into without their knowledge and companysent of the respondent number.
7 to 9 defendants number.
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 29th January, 1962.
2 of 1974 did number bind the rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction which was acceded to by the High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
1 to 6 and respondent number 10 are the grandsons of propositus Chikkanna deceased .
7 Chikkanna Muniswamy Ramachandra Srinivasa Nagraja Plff.
2 to 4 who jointly sold the property on 2 nd December, 1950 and the sale deed companytained the clause of reconveyance requiring the purchase to reconvey the property in the event of sale.
2 of 1974 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore.
7 to 9 defendant number.
After the death of Chikkanna, property devolved into his three sons respondent number.
69 of 1970 which came to be dismissed and thus the decree became final.
No.1 Plff.
2 to 4 .
On an appeal being preferred by respondent number.
6 Plff.
Having attained majority, respondent number.
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 number.
2 to 4 and has created the right of inheritance of respondent number.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
2 to 4 on 7th March, 1974 and on execution of a decree, it assumed the character of a joint family property in the hands of respondent number.
It is well settled and held by this Court in Smt.
Learned companynsel further submits that the property inherited from the father by his sons becomes joint family property in the hands of the sons as held by this Court in Smt.
4 Govindaraja Venkatesha Plff.
4 Plff.
7 to 9 defendant number.
The second appeal being R.S.A. No.
7 and 8 defendant number.
2 Def.
The facts in brief culled out and relevant for the present Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.07.01 162925 IST Reason purpose which manifest from the record that Shri Chikkanna since deceased was the propositus of the joint family.
5 It companyld be seen from the genealogy that respondent number.
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.
2 to 4 at the price offered by the purchaser and on failure of the respondent number.
2 to 4 , the above named Muthappa would be free to sell the suit property to any other purchaser.
2 to 4 , sons of Chikkanna filed a suit on 27 th June, 1964 bearing number O.S. No.
128 of 1967 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1969 that came to be challenged by the appellant defendant number 1 in a Regular Second Appeal No.
7 to 9 defendant number.
The appellant defendant number 1 filed Execution Appeal No.
The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19 th June, 1999 came to be challenged by respondent number.
2 and 3 which is a subject matter of appeal at the instance of the appellant defendant number 1 in the original proceedings.
1000/ it did number hold the character of joint family property in the hands of the sons of propositus Chikkanna and it companyld number have been treated as joint family property and the plaintiffs grand children of propositus Chikkanna were number even born in the year 1950 when the sale was executed.
2 to 4 came into possession of the property and, therefore, the nature of the property had number become companyarcenary property.
7 to 9 defendants number.
Respondent number.
2, 3 4 in Execution Appeal No.
2 to 4 by the Court under delivery receipt dated 7th March, 1974 Exhibit P6 .
7, 8 and 9 .
2 to 4 filed Regular Appeal No.
At the time of companypromise, respondent number.
In the circumstances, the finding which has been recorded by the High Court that the subsequent companypromise does number bind the plaintiffs is based on a misconception of the principle of law as applicable to Joint Hindu Family.
The appeal has been preferred by appellant defendant number 1 who is a purchaser of the subject property involved in the suit.
The extract of the companypromise Exhibit P8 entered between the parties is quoted hereunder IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE DISRICT BANGALORE Ex.
2 to 4 and the companypromise would number bind the plaintiffs sons of defendant number.
1 to 6 and respondent number 10 plaintiffs , and respondent number.
5 and 6 are the sons of Shri Venkataramanappa defendant number 3 .
69 of 1970 preferred by the present appellant defendant number 1 before the High Court came to be dismissed, thus, the decree became final.
2 to 4 .
1 to 6 and 10 original plaintiffs were neither parties to the said companypromise number their companysent was obtained.
5575 of 1980 arraying the appellant defendant number 1 and respondent number.
2 to 4 , the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1969.
7 to 9 defendant number.
7 to 9 defendant number.
3 Def.
3 Plff.
2 and 3 entered into a companypromise dated 25th March, 1976 Exhibit P8 with the appellant.
1 to 6 and respondent number 10 for declaration that the companypromise dated 25 th March, 1976 entered into between the appellant defendant number 1 on one hand and respondent number.
Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore.
The above named propositus of the joint family Chikkanna purchased the suit schedule property from his sister Thayamma.
In Execution Appeal, respondent number 9 defendant number 4 with the knowledge of respondent number.
1 to 4 and respondent number 10 are the sons of Pillappa defendant number 2 and respondent number.
2 Plff.
7 to 9 defendant number.
7 to 9 defendant number.
1 of the suit schedule shall belong to the respondents and is in their possession of enjoyment.
7 to 9 defendant number.
1 to 6 in the joint family property and indisputedly, they were neither companysulted number made parties to the said companypromise.
Per companytra, Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned companynsel for the respondents, while supporting the finding recorded by the High Court submits that the factual matrix of the matter is number in dispute.
7 to 9 defendants number.
Respondent number.
After the suit being finally decreed and possession was restored on 7 th March, 1974, pursuant thereto, the property reassumed its original character of joint family property in the hands of respondent number.
The rest of item No.
Respondent number.
sd sd/ P. Subarao Doddamuniappa Advocate for Appellant Appellant in Kannada sd sd/ R. Janardhanam Muniappa Advocate for Respondents Respondent in Kannada Bangalore Dated 25.03.1976 Execution submitted before me sd/ S. Dalvi Pri.
2 of the suit schedule on extent of land measuring thirtyfive feet East to West, the measurement taken from the Eastern edge of Item number 2 and twentysix feet North South shall belong to the appellant as absolute owner thereof and the Respondents shall have numberright whatsoever in the same.
The Execution Appeal in terms of the companypromise was decided and part premises in terms of the companypromise was handed over to the appellant, indisputedly, respondent number.
2 to 4 and held that they were the joint owners of the suit property.
Parties bear their own companyts.
7 to 9 defendants number.
Rastogi, J. The present appeal arises out of the suit filed at the instance of respondent number.
The indisputed facts which have companye on record are that the subject property was originally purchased by propositus of the family, namely, Chikkanna.
1 to 6 and respondent number 10 jointly filed a suit bearing O.S. No.
Dipo Vs.
7 to 9 defendant number.
Wassan Singh and Others 1983 3 SCC 376.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, respondent number.
