The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(A) H.K.SANDYA, D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 1(B) H.K.VANI D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.4, 1ST CROSS, RANGANATHAPURA, M.TEMPLE ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE-560 079. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI H K BASAVARAJU S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR 2. SMT. CHIKKALAKSHMI W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT. LEELA D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SMT. REVATHI D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENT No.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF NO.141/2, 8TH MAIN ROAD, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 040. 5. SRI. H.K. DINESHA D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KESHAVA ARTS, OPPOSITE SYNDICATE BANK, BIKKANAKATTE, MANGALORE-575 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J M ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2 SRI. Y.S.H. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R3 & R4 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 27.4.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.290/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 13.4.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.298/2004 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HASSAN. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR 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 appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2013, passed in R.A.No.290/2009 by the learned Fast Track Court – II and Additional District Judge, Hassan, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 13.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.298/2004 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Hassan. 2. For convenience, THE parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. Appellants No.1(a) and 1(b) were the legal representatives of defendant No.1, appellant No.2 was defendant No.6, and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent Nos.2 to 5 were defendants No.2 to 5. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession and for declaration that Gift deed dated 21.05.2004 as not binding. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties; defendant No.1 inherited the suit schedule properties from his father, Annegowda. The plaintiff and defendants are members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition has been effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is contended that after the death of Smt. Puttamma, Annegowda’s two sons, i.e., defendant No.1 and Beluregowda got divided the properties under a partition deed dated 20.11.2003, which are the suit schedule properties, i.e., item Nos.1, 2 and 4. 3.1. It is contended that defendant No.1, having been addicted to bad habits and having neglected the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR family, has executed a registered gift deed dated 21.05.2004 in favour of defendant No.6 regarding items Nos.1 and 2 of the suit proeprties. It is contended that defendant No.1 has no right to execute the registered gift deed regarding item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. The Gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to effect a partition, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.2. Defendants No.1 and 6 filed a written statement contending that since defendant No.2 and her children had deserted defendant No.1, having no other alternative, with the blessings of his mother, had married defendant No.6, and had two daughters out of their wedlock. It is contended that suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties. That Puttamma, the mother of defendant No.1, had purchased item Nos.2 and 4 of the suit schedule - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR properties out of her own income under the registered sale deed dated 19.02.1958. Items No.1, 2 and 4 of the suit schedule properties was fallen to the share of defendant No.1 in the partition between him and his brother on 20.11.2003 and item No.3 is the land granted in favour of defendant No.1. It is also contended that KIADB acquired the ancestral property and gave compensation, and the same was divided amongst the family members. It is contended that defendant No.1 had borrowed money from some private persons for performing the marriage of defendant No.5, and after selling another self-acquired property in Bangalore, he had given a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to defendant No.2 for her maintenance, and she executed an agreement on 22.01.2003. Hence, defendants No.1 and 6 prays to dismiss the suit against defendants No.1 and 6. 3.3. Defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have filed a joint a written statement, admitting that the suit properties are the joint properties and accordingly supported the plaintiff’s claim. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR 3.4. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 3.5. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to 8. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, 2 witnesses were examined as DWs.2 and 3, and marked 6 documents as Exs.D1 to D6. The trial court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 13.04.2009. It is ordered and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. It is also declared that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 regarding items Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties is not binding on the right of the plaintiff. It is also further held that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits in the suit schedule properties in respect of his share from the date of suit till handing over the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR possession of his share in the suit schedule properties, and there shall be a separate enquiry about mesne profits as per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. 3.5. Legal representatives of defendant No.1, and defendant No.6, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.298/2004, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.290/2009 on the file of learned Fast Track Court-II and Additional District Judge, Hassan. 3.6. The first Appellate Court after hearing the parties and on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment dated 27.04.2013. The legal representatives of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri. G.M.Sharath Kumar for Sri. Chethan B., for the legal representatives of defendants No.1 and 6. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR 5. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of defendants No.1 and 6 submits that the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of defendant Nos.1 and 6. 7. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit. Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and defendants. To prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties, the plaintiff has produced documents marked as Exs.P1 to P8. Ex.P4 is the registered sale deed, which discloses that item Nos.2 and 4 were purchased by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR Puttamma, i.e., the mother of defendant No.1, under a registered sale deed. She died, and after her demise, items Nos.2 and 4 devolved upon defendant No.1. Insofar as item No.3 of the suit schedule property is concerned, it was granted in favour of defendant No.1 by the Government, as defendant No.1 is an elder male member of the family. The Land Tribunal granted the said land in favour of defendant No.1, on behalf of the family. Further, insofar as item Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, the said properties were purchased by Puttamma, and she became the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 8. Both the Courts below, considering the suit schedule properties as the ancestral and joint family properties, have rightly held that the plaintiff and defendants are the members of the Hindu joint family, and no partition is effected between the parties to the suit, and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20111 RSA No. 98 of 2014 HC-KAR evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law, that arises for consideration in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS