Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Gowtham Chand vs A. G. Shivakumar Since Dead By Lrs on 18 July, 2025
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No.24993/2023)
GOWTHAM CHAND APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
A. G. SHIVAKUMAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is defendant No.2 in a suit
for partition and separate possession filed by the
contesting respondents. This Court is only concerned
with Item No.2 of Schedule ‘A’ properties.
3. An agreement was entered into between the appellant
being defendant No.2, and the father of the other
respondents being defendant No.1. Pursuant to the
said agreement in the year 1977, a sale deed was
executed in the year 1980. A few days prior to the
execution of the sale deed, a suit for partition and
Signature Not Verified
separate possession was filed by the contesting
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.07.28
17:40:24 IST
respondents. Summons were issued after the execution
Reason:
of the sale deed. The Trial Court was pleased to
grant a decree in favour of the contesting
2
respondents, except to the extent of Item No.2 of
Scheduled ‘A’, inter alia holding that the appellant
is a bonafide purchaser of value. The judgment and
decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the First
Appellate Court. However, on a second appeal, the
High Court has set aside the decree insofar as Item
No.2 of Scheduled ‘A’ is concerned, on the premise
that the suit property is a joint family property
and it was purchased by the appellant during the
pendency of the suit. Challenging the same, the
present appeal has been filed.
4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
‘the CPC’) is rather well defined. What is required
is a substantial question of law which if answered
in favour of the appellant, shall have the effect of
reversing the judgment and decree of the Court
below. As a matter of course, findings rendered on
facts ought not to be interfered with. In other
words, a substantial question of law arises from the
findings rendered by the First Appellate Court. The
First Appellate Court while exercising power under
Section 96 of the CPC is the final Court of fact and
law.
5. The reasoning of the High Court in the impugned
order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
3
Admittedly, an agreement was entered into way back
in the year 1977 between the appellant and defendant
No.1. It is only pursuant to the said agreement that
a sale deed was executed on 30.07.1980. There is no
bar for alienation during the pendency of a suit.
However, in this case, the sale deed was executed on
30.07.1980, but the suit was filed on 25.07.1980 and
summons were issued much later.
6. Therefore, even the question of an earlier pending
suit does not arise. Both the Courts have held that
equity shall be considered in favour of the
appellant. As per settled position of the law,
defendant No.1 is entitled to alienate joint family
property as a ‘karta’.
7. Thus, looking from any perspective, the High Court
ought not to have interfered with the judgment and
decree rendered by the Courts below. It is not as if
there are no sufficient properties to work out
equities. This is a fact which has been taken note
of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court. As there is a factual finding with respect to
the bonafide transaction and in view of our
aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to set aside
the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court
4
stands revived.
8. The contesting respondents are at liberty to seek
their respective shares in Item No.2 of Schedule
‘A’, from the remaining share allotted to their
father being defendant No.1.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………………………………………………………J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
18th JULY, 2025
5
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24993/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-08-2022
in RSA No. 206/2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru]
GOWTHAM CHAND Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
A. G. SHIVAKUMAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 18-07-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Madhvendra Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (AVGV RAMU) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)