The Karnataka High Court has said that mere handing over of sale consideration by a person to the vendor, at the time of execution of sale deed, will not in itself create such persons' right in the property.
"The endorsement only indicates that the money that was paid by Rangamma was handed over by plaintiff to the vendor...a feeble attempt is made by plaintiff to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property under the garb that he has equally contributed while acquiring his properties."
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed by one KS Rama Rao questioning the concurrent judgments of the courts below wherein his suit seeking relief of declaration that he has half share in the properties and for partition and separate possession were dismissed.
The plaintiff claimed that he and his elder brother KS Narasimaiah migrated to Magadi, started their own hotel business and out of the income generated, they got suit property registered in the name of Narasimaiah's wife namely Rangamma. Plaintiff specifically contended that the property purchased in the name of his sister-in-law is in fact joint property purchased by both the brothers and claimed that he is entitled to have half share in the suit schedule property.
The bench said there is absolutely no evidence let in by the plaintiff to prove his averments.
"If there is no nucleus and in absence of some tangible evidence to indicate that he shifted along with his elder brother and started a hotel business jointly, this Court is of the view that both the Courts were justified in not accepting the contention raised by the plaintiff in the present suit."
It also rejected the contention of the plaintiff that endorsement made on the sale deed indicated he had made sale consideration for the suit property. It said that the endorsement only indicated that the money that was paid by Rangamma was handed over by plaintiff to the vendor. "The endorsement nowhere indicates that sale consideration was equally contributed by the plaintiff."
The Court noted that during the lifetime of Narasimaiah, the plaintiff never asserted right over the property. It added,
"If really all the suit schedule properties were purchased through joint labour, then it was quite unnatural for an elder brother to purchase the property in the name of his wife. Obviously, if there was equal contribution, the plaintiff would have never agreed to purchase the property in the name of his sister-in-law. Therefore, the theory that plaintiff has equally contributed by parting sale consideration appears to be unnatural and both the Courts have not accepted this contention."
Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: K.S.RAMA RAO v. SUBBALAKSHMI
Case No: R.S.A NO. 1092 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
Date of Order: 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
Appearance: T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE for appellant; SOURABH R.K., ADVOCATE for respondent.