Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramamma vs Smt Renukamma on 26 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
RSA No. 1251 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMAMMA
W/O ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
R/O KORAKODU VILLAGE
KUPPAGADDE HOBLI
SORAB TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
2. SMT. RENUKA
W/O PARUSHURAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
Digitally signed R/O KUPPAGADDE VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M
KUPPAGADDE HOBLI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SORAB TALUK
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O HIRIYANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
R/O CHITRATTEHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SORAB TALUK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
RSA No. 1251 of 2024
HC-KAR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPDRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.104/2016 ON THE FILE OF C/C.
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. This Appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court. The Trial Court granted the relief of ½ share in the item Nos. 1 to 3 of suit schedule properties and also ordered that the registered gift deed dated 05.04.2016 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of item No. 2 of the suit schedule property is not binding -3- NC: 2025:KHC:22508 RSA No. 1251 of 2024 HC-KAR to an extent of share of the plaintiff in item No.2 of the suit schedule property.
2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the same in coming to the conclusion that Trial Court not committed any error and on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in coming to the conclusion that property belongs to the Halegudda Kallappa who died on 22.01.2022 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff has also contended that she is having the ½ share in the suit schedule property. The defendant who appeared and filed the written statement before the Trial Court contend that a Will is executed by the father in his favour in the year 1974 and though got marked the document Ex.D.5-certified copy of the Will, but not examined any of the attesting witnesses to the Will and hence, the Trial Court not accepted the contention of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:22508 RSA No. 1251 of 2024 HC-KAR defendant and granted the ½ share in respect of the properties left by the father.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants in the second appeal would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error and failed to appreciate the suit schedule properties are the self acquired property of father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and also it is a contention that failed to consider the document of Will dated 16.01.1974 which obstructs inheritance of the property. In the absence of a will, the property devolves on the legal heirs in accordance with their personal law. The counsel also vehemently content that the First Appellate Court failed to consider the material that property is a self acquired property of the father having right to alienate and create any document and also the fact that property was purchased on 13.06.1955 and he executed the Will in favour of the appellant No.1 in respect of item No.1. Both the Courts have committed an error in -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22508 RSA No. 1251 of 2024 HC-KAR granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff and hence it requires interference.
4. Having heard the appellants' counsel, counsel not disputes with regard to the nature of the property in respect of other items and only his contention is in respect of item No.1 of the property that there was a Will. The father had purchased the property in the year 1955 and he also executed the Will in the year 1974. No doubt the appellants/defendants got marked the document of Will as Ex.D5 and though got marked the document of Will, but not examined any of the attesting witnesses to prove the Will. The Trial Court also having taken note of when the document is got marked as Ex.D.5-Will, none of the witness is examined before the Court and the same is discussed in paragraph No.35 of the judgment that Will is registered document and the same was registered on 16.01.1974, except producing the Will, defendant No.1 has not made any effort to prove the Ex.D.5-Will and the Will has to be proved as per Section 63 of the Indian -6- NC: 2025:KHC:22508 RSA No. 1251 of 2024 HC-KAR Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also even extracted Section 63 and Section 68 of the Acts and detailed discussion was made.
5. The counsel during the course of argument admits that he did not examine any of the witnesses and mandatory statutory provisions has not been complied and when such being the case, he cannot contend that Will is proved and no need to prove the Will since the document is a registered document and the said contention cannot be accepted and when such being the case, the dispute is only in respect of the property which the father had purchased and the fact that the father died as intestate since though claims that the Will is executed and the same has not been proved and even though relies upon the document of Ex.D.5, and the same has not been proved. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:22508 RSA No. 1251 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60