K.C. LAXMANA versus K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

K.C. LAXMANA versus K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

Article 109 of the Limitation Act applied to the suit, so the twelve-year limitation (from date the alienee took possession on 22.03.1980) meant the suit filed on 11.10.1991 was within time; further, the settlement/gift deed (Ex.P-1) was a gift by the Karta to a non-coparcener made without the consent of coparceners and not for a pious (charitable or religious) purpose, and was therefore null and void; the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant / Second Defendant: K.C. Laxmana; Respondent / Plaintiff: K.C. Chandrappa Gowda; First Defendant / Father: K.S. Chinne Gowda
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (special Leave) / Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeal No.372 of 2003 Dated 03.10.2008
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 109 Limitation, Article 58 Limitation, Gifts of Ancestral Property, Karta's Powers, Joint Hindu Family, Coparcenary Consent, Pious Purpose Doctrine
Limitation Act 1963 Hindu Law (mitakshara) Property Law Family Law Article 109 Limitation Article 58 Limitation Gifts of Ancestral Property Karta's Powers +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.C. Laxmana

Appellant / Second Defendant

K.C. Chandrappa Gowda

Respondent / Plaintiff

K.S. Chinne Gowda

First Defendant / Father

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (special Leave) / Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeal No.372 of 2003 Dated 03.10.2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 58 or Article 109 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit by a son challenging alienation by his father of ancestral/joint family property under Mitakshara law
  2. 2 Whether the suit challenging the gift/settlement deed was barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether a Karta can validly alienate ancestral/joint family property by gift 'out of love and affection' to a non-coparcener without coparcenary consent

Ratio Decidendi

Article 109 of the Limitation Act applied to the suit, so the twelve-year limitation (from date the alienee took possession on 22.03.1980) meant the suit filed on 11.10.1991 was within time; further, the settlement/gift deed (Ex.P-1) was a gift by the Karta to a non-coparcener made without the consent of coparceners and not for a pious (charitable or religious) purpose, and was therefore null and void; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Settlement deed (Ex.P-1) declared null and void.
  • Appeal dismissed.