The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. MANJA S/O DODDABORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O DODDABORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. SANNADEVAMMA W/O DODDABORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, 4. SUJATHA D/O DODDABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. THAYAMMA D/O DODDABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 6. MANJULA D/O DODDABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ALL ARE R/O SINDHAGHATA VILLAGE, SEELANERE HOBLI K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-572 101
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR AND: 1. BORAIAH S/O LATE PIDDE @ BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. VARALAKSHMI @ KADAMMA W/O LATE PIDDE @ BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O SINDHAGHATTA VILLAGE SEELANERE HOBLI K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.6.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.86/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.PET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2010 PASSED IN OS NO.21/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, K.R. PET. 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 14.06.2017 passed in R.A.No.86/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet, and the judgment and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR preliminary decree dated 18.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.21/2000 by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Krishnarajpete. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and the defendants are cousin brothers, and members of a Hindu undivided joint family. It is contended that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. There is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming a half share over the entire suit schedule properties. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiffs are strangers to the family of the defendants. The plaintiffs have no right to claim a share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 3.3. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, and marked 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR examined one witness as DW.2, and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, and ordered and declared that the plaintiffs together are entitled to a half share in the suit schedule properties, vide judgment dated 18.10.2010. 3.4. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 18.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.21/2000, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.86/2010 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, K.R.Pet. 3.5. The first Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 14.06.2017. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Girish B. Baladare, the learned counsel for the defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiffs are strangers to the family of the defendants. The plaintiffs have failed to establish relationship with the defendants. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule properties. He also submits that plaintiff No.2 has not entered the witness box, and has not proved the contents of the documents. He submits that impugned judgments passed by the courts below are arbitrary, and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants. 7. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, and he has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. To establish the relationship with the defendants, the plaintiffs have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR produced the documents, The marriage invitation card of plaintiff No.1’s father is marked as Ex.P11. The said document came into existence in 1977, and the plaintiffs also produced election I.D cards of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 which are marked as Ex.P12 and 13. Furthermore, the plaintiffs also examined PW.2, who is a relative of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. He deposed that the plaintiffs are related to the defendants, and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. He also deposed that no partition has been effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. Nothing has been elicited in the course of cross-examination of PW.2, to disbelieve their evidence. The plaintiff examined PW.3 to show that there was settlement proceedings took place between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. 8. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. During the course of cross- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR examination of DW.1, he has not denied the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial Court considering Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has held that the plaintiffs have proved their relationship with the defendants, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, they are the members of Hindu undivided joint family, no partition is effected between them and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 9. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have proved the relationship with the defendants and, the first Appellate Court relying on the nature of the suit schedule properties, rightly confirmed the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court. Both the Courts below have rightly considered the evidence of PW.2 to establish the relationship of the plaintiffs with the defendants and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. I do not find any error in the impugned - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18917 RSA No. 2000 of 2017 HC-KAR judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2017 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS