O. LATE v. A. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.919 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: V A KONDAPPA S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT THIRUMANI VILLAGE, NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKURU DIST-572 136. (BY SRI SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O. LATE V. A. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT THIRUMANI VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKURU DIST NOW R/AT JANATHALUR VILLAGE, B. K. SAMUDRAM MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 701. 2. SRI. V. A. VENKATESH S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT THIRUMANI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKURU DIST-572 136. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SANJEEVAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. JANARDHANA S/O SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. AMBIKA D/O SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT RAMAGIRI, RAMAGIRI MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 612. 6. APARNA W/O SUDHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT RANGAPURAM VILLAGE, NARPAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 612. THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2024 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR PASSED IN R.A. NO.5007/2020 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SESSIONS TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI AND ETC. AND THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2025 wherein prayed for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. It is contended that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant appeared and contend that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 leased the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 and the plaintiff has no right to stop the lease amount from defendant No.4 to the defendants . The defendants though - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR filed the written statement, not led any evidence and when the suit was pending, given consent for decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Having taken note of the pleading of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative since there is an admission that there was a partition between the parties and Issue No.3 is answered as negative and while answering Issue No.4, the Trial Court saw the conduct of the defendants that once they denied the relief and later gave the consent to decree the suit and hence, the same is nothing but interference with the possession of he plaintiff and answered the said Issue as affirmative. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.5007/2020 and the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the point that whether the Trial Court committed any error by declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit schedule properties by holding that she got right - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR over the suit schedule properties by virtue of partition deed dated 14.07.2016 and reassessed the material on record. Having considered the fact that there was already partition between the parties, the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 4. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in decreeing the suit and failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective. The counsel would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was in the right state of mind when the matter was taken up by the Trial Court was not taken note of by the First Appellate Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the material on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR record, it discloses that the suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff. Though the defendants filed the written statement, admitted the earlier partition. When already there was a partition and document also entered, the Trial Court in detail considered the same while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative since the plaintiff has been in possession of the property consequent upon the partition. There is no dispute with regard to the partition is concerned. Even though written statement was filed, not entered into the witness box by the defendants and not led any evidence and given consent to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record, in paragraph 12, taken note of the document placed on record and also the partition taken place between them i.e., between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, 2 and 3 and the respective survey numbers are also allotted in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court considered the same and also - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20551 RSA No. 919 of 2024 HC-KAR considering the admission in the written statement wherein it is very clear that partition was effected between them and possession also given in favour of the plaintiff and rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner and she in possession of the suit schedule property. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts and question of framing of substantive question of law as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant does not arise in the absence of leading any evidence. Thus, I do not find any grounds to admit the second appeal and to frame substantive questions of law since the appellant not led any evidence.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. SN Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE