Karnataka High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

2. SRI PRAKASH, S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

3. SRI MURALI, S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

4. SRI RAMESHA, S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT AJJAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDACHINNAHALLI POST, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563 120.

5. SMT. KALYANAMMA, D/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR R/AT MITTUR VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK-563 127.

6. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT DODDURKARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563 162. SMT. RAMAKKA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

7. SRI N. B. PURUSHOTHAMA, S/O. LATE BAYYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. B187, BLOCK 10, DOMMALUR BUS STAND, BANGALORE-560 071.

8. SRI B. ANANDA, S/O. LATE BAYYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT ANANDA NILAYA, NO.14, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, BEHIND SHOLINGS, SPRING FIELD APARTMENT, MAHADEVAPURA, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU-560 048.

9. SRI B. UDAY KUMAR, S/O. BAYYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MALLANGUR VILLAGE, D.C. HALLI POST, OORGAUM POST-563120, BANGARPET TALUK.

10. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, D/O. BAYYAPPA, W/O. VENKATESHAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 …APPELLANTS HC-KAR R/AT MEDITHAMBIHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR POST-563103, KOLAR DISTRICT. (BY SRI P VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. VENKATAMMA, D/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA & W/O. KRISHNAPPA, (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.,)

1. SRI SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE VENKATAMMA & KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

2. SRI MURALI, S/O. LATE VENKATAMMA & KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NOS. 1 & 2 ARE (R/AT THYARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KARAMANGALA POST-563114, BANGARAPET TALUK).

3. SMT. NEELAMMA, D/O. LATE VENKATAMMA & KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT T. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, KGF TALUK-563125.

4. SRI SONNAPPA, S/O. MUNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT T. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563 116. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.11.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.158/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF)., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.312/2013 ON THE FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This second appeal filed against concurrent findings granting of share in the aspect of Item No. 1 to 4 and Item No. 5 is concerned, suit was dismissed and the same is confirmed in the Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, is, it is specifically pleaded that Item - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR No. 1 to 4 originally belongs to Mallappa, Krishnappa and Narayanappa are the sons of the said Mallappa and having other 4 children. Defendant No. 5 in the written statement specifically pleaded with regard to Item No. 5 is concerned that the same is a self acquired property of defendant and the same was also sold and defendant No.4 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the Item No. 5 of the suit sale property. The trial Court having considered the pleadings and evidence available on record, rightly comes to the conclusion that Item No. 1 to 4 are the family properties and Item No. 5 is the self-acquired property and already the same is sold and hence, relief is granted granting half share in respect of Item No. 1 to 4 of the scheduled property. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court.

4. The Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, formulated the point whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is capricious and perverse; whether the trial - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR Court has not discussed the evidence of the parties in proper and perspective manner and also taken note of the contention whether the plaintiff has no right in the suit properties as she is member of her husband's family and she married about 40 years back and claiming share in the joint family properties as joint family member is contrary. The Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record answered all the point in the negative in coming to the conclusion that there is an admission that suit schedule property Item No. 3 originally belongs to Mallappa and then it came to his grandfather Krishnappa and also the suit Item No. 5 property belongs to my grandfather Krishnappa, he earned that property and these are the admissions on the part of DW1 which were also taken note of by the Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that Item No. 1 to 4 are the family properties and the very contention of the appellants that both the Courts ought not to have granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff was not accepted and also made an observation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR that in the absence of any counter appeal in respect of Item No.5 is concerned, the question of reversing the same does not arise and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

5. The counsel appearing for the appellants in this appeal mainly contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not properly appreciating the material available on record. The main contention of the counsel is that burden is on the plaintiff to prove that properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. The trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit and the Appellate Court also committed an error in dismissing the appeal. It is the specific case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that property belongs to the joint family, only relied upon RTC and not produced the title deeds to prove the nature and acquisition of properties. The trial Court erroneously comes to the conclusion that Item Nos.1 to 4 are ancestral properties and the very - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR approach of the Appellate Court is also erroneous and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

6. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the plaint averments as well as defence set out in the written statement, the fact that property originally belongs to Mallappa is not in dispute and also counsel brought to the notice of this Court that no title deeds are produced in respect of item Nos.1 to 4. But on perusal of the written statement, it is specifically pleaded that Item Nos.5 of the property is only self-acquired property and not disputed the relationship between the parties and also the nature of properties in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 4 is concerned. When such being the case, when the trial Court has taken note of the defence which the defendants have taken in their written statement that item No.5 is self acquired property and it was also sold, has rightly dismissed the suit in respect of item No.5. In respect of item No.1 to 4 is concerned, having considered the relationship between the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR parties, particularly, in paragraph 20, the trial Court has given the reasoning that when the property originally belongs to Mallappa who died leaving behind 6 children and out of the legal heirs, 2 sons i.e. Krishnappa and Narayanappa were alive and plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 represent their particular branch. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of trial Court in granting the relief and the Appellate Court also on overall re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff cannot be denied a right in the joint family properties, only for the reason that, she has been given in marriage about 45 years back and her marriage expenses was borne by the defendants who is her brother and she is residing in her matrimonial home. The defence which was taken that the defendant No.1 only met the marriage expenses cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled for share in the property. When such reasoning is given by appreciating both oral and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44311 RSA No. 1113 of 2025 HC-KAR documentary evidence available on record, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law and the contention of the appellants' counsel cannot be accepted.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51