The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: T.R. SEETHARAMAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH @ THANINATHI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEIND PCARD BANK, BAGEPALLI TOWN 561 207. (BY SRI. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE R. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT OPPOSITE CENTRAL LIBRARY, BEHIND I.B, BB ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR 562 101. …APPELLANT 2. SMT. MEENAKUMARI D/O LATE R. SRINIVASAIAH, W/O S.K. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, NAMMA MANE CHETANA, GARDEN VILAS, BYRAVESHWRANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
3. S. SRIDHAR S/O LATE R SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT. ARUNAKUMARI D/O LATE R SRINIVASAIAH, W/O DINESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT PLOT NO.501, GAGAN MURTHY APARTMENTS, PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. 5. SMT. NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT PERESANDRA VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR 562 104. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.42/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (ITINERARY COURT) GUDIBANDE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2018 PASSED IN OS No.19/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2021 passed in R.A No.42/2018 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge (Itinerary Court) at Gudibande, confirming the Judgment and preliminary decree dated 16.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.19/2011 by the Learned Civil Judge, Gudibande. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was defendant No.1, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the plaintiffs, and respondent No.5 was defendant No.2. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 The plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties belong to one Ramaiah @ Thanathi Ramaiah @ Jawan Ramaiah @ Dafedar Ramaiah, who died on 27.09.2000, leaving behind his two sons and a daughter. The plaintiffs are the children of the eldest son of Ramaiah by the name R.Srinivasaiah and defendant No.1 is the second son of Ramaiah, and defendant No.2 is the daughter of Ramaiah. 4. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the Hindu Joint Family. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession. The defendants refused to effect the partition. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the entire averments made in the plaint, but denied that, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of the suit properties in Sy.No.183/1 measuring 2 guntas exclusively and it has lost its character of agricultural land. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 admit that the plaintiffs and defendant are enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 sought a counter claim regarding Sy.No.183/1. Other defendants have also admitted the contents of a written statement, and accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1, and marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The defendant did not enter the witness box. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 on assessment of both oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 16.02.2018. It is declared that, the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share in item Nos.1 to 10 of the suit schedule properties, and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are equally entitled to 2/3rd share in item Nos.1 to 10 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants shall get their separate possession by metes and bounds as per Section 54 of CPC. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.19/2011 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.42/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, (Itinerary Court), Gudibande. The appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the points for consideration. 7. The appellate Court, on the re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12.02.2021, and confirmed the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this regular second appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for defendant No.1. 9. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that, the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. She submits that the relationship between the parties, and nature of properties was denied. She submits that, the trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit as per Order XII rule 6 of CPC. She submits that, there is no admission by the defendants regarding the relationship, and the nature of the suit schedule properties. She submits that, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant No.1. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 11. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the Hindu joint family, and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession. The defendants refused to effect partition. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties, the plaintiffs have produced documents. Ex.P.1 is the genealogical tree, Exs.P.2 and P.3 are the death certificates, Exs.P.4 to P.13 are the RTC extracts, Ex.P.14 to P.16 are the mutation extracts and Ex.P.17 is the survey sketch. The defendants did not cross examine PW.1, and not entered the witness box. The defendants have filed a written statement admitting the contents of the plaint and sought to grant a share to the defendants in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 the suit schedule properties. The trial Court, considering the admission of the defendants in the pleadings, and applying Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, had decreed the suit, based on the admissions. The Appellate Court, on re- assessment of oral and documentary evidence, has held that the plaintiff and defendants have admitted regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit and the nature of suit schedule properties, and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties and dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and, confirmed the judgment and preliminary decree dated 16.02.2018 passed by the trial Court. 12. The plaintiffs and defendants have admitted the relationship between the parties to the suit, and the nature of the suit schedule properties. The defendants also sought to grant a share in the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the defendants have not entered the witness box, and prayed to decree the suit. Both the courts below, considering Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, have - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9221 RSA No. 64 of 2022 rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I concur with the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order
Decision
ORDER i) Appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the costs. iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA No.1/2022, does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, IA No.1/2022 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK,rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26