Karnataka High Court
Smt Joice Daisy vs Smt Poosanmammal on 8 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35228
RSA No. 1756 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1756 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JOICE DAISY
W/O. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. SMT. MENAKA
W/O DHANASHANKARAN
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KOTHAR VILLAGE,
PEDAPALLI POST,
ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 120.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE FOR
MALATESH SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)
KC AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT POOSANMAMMAL
KARNATAKA W/O LATE CHINNADURAI
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
2. SMT. JAYAKUMARI
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
D/O SMT POOSANAMMAL AND CHINNADURAI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35228
RSA No. 1756 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. SMT. VIOLET MARY
W/O SRI KARUNAGAARAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO 43, HERNRYS 2ND LANE,
COROMANDEL POST,
KGF - 563 119
4. SMT KALAIVENI
W/O VADIVEL
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO 46, NEW MODEL HOUSE,
HERNRY'S COROMANDEL POST,
KGF - 563 119
5. SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O SRI KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT HENRYS 2ND LANE,
COROMANDEL POST,
KGF - 563 119
6. SARDAR AHMED
S/O MUNEER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.159 AND NO.1222,
3RD CROSS,
BALAKRISHNA NAGAR,
MINI IBRAHIM ROAD,
ROBERTSON PET
KGF - 563 119
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3, R4 & R5
(NOTICE NOT ORDERED))
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35228
RSA No. 1756 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.08.2023 PASSED IN RA
NO.127/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
PRINCIPAL JMFC, K.G.F., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.06.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.133/2013 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, K.G.F.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Shruthi S. P., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Vinaya Keerthy M., learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.133/2013 whereby suit for partition of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed which was confirmed in RA No.127/2022.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. A suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) came to be filed by the appellants against the respondents:
Item No. 1: Land bearing Survey No. 6/2, measuring 27 guntas along with 2 guntas of Kharab. Assessed at Rs. 0.92 paise situate at Peddapalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet taluk and the same is bounded on the East by: Sri. Bychappa's land, West by: Road, North by: Sri. Veerappachari's property and South by: Sri. Veerappachari's property.
Item No. 2: Land bearing Survey No. 6/3, measuring 38 guntas Assessed at Rs. 1.30 paise situate at Peddapalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet taluk and the same is bounded on the East by: Sri. Veerappachari land, West by: Sri. Gangappa's land and road, North by: Sri. Gangaram Dass's land and South by: Sy.no. 6/2 belonging to the joint family.
Item No. 3: Land bearing Survey No. 209/1. measuring 32 guntas. Assessed at Rs. 1.00 situate at Peddapalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet taluk and the same is bounded on the East by: Jakkriya Baig land, West by: Jabbar's land, North by: Government road and Oni and South by: Murugappa's property.
Item No. 4: Old dilapidated house bearing V.P. Khatha No. 134, measuring East to West: 96 ½ feet and North to South: 45 ½ feet, situate at Peddapalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet taluk and the same is -5- NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR bounded on the East by: House property and vacant space, West by: Appadurai House & road, North by:
Aiyadurai property and South by: Raji property and thereafter wards Gangamma temple and road.
3.2. It is contended that Chinnadurai was the progenitor of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants.
Said Chinnadurai was married to one Pooshanamma and they had five children namely Jayakumari, Violet Mary, Kalivani, Shanthakumari and Subramani.
3.3. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Subramani and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of said Subramani. Out of the five children, Subramani is no more and all the children and wife of said Chinnadurai have constituted Hindu Undivided Family.
4. Chinnadoari purchased the suit item No.1 property and same was registered in the name of Pooshanamma. Suit item No.2 was also purchased in her name on 03.01.1980 under registered sale deed. Suit -6- NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR item No.3 was purchased by defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 27.09.1960.
5. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant No.1 knowing fully well about the existence of the joint family and joint status over the suit properties, illegally executed registered sale deed on 15.09.1994 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of item No.1 of the suit property and executed a release deed in favour of defendant No.4 by relinquishing her right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.6/3 and defendant No.1 also sold suit item No.3 in favour of defendant No.6 under registered sale deed dated 16.02.2010 detrimental to the interest of other members of joint family and sought for decreeing the suit.
6. Defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed written statement contending that suit properties are the self acquired properties. It is also contended that parties are not Hindus and they are Christians. Therefore, there is no existence of Joint Hindu family as alleged and sought for dismissal of the suit.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR
7. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.127/2022.
9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs failed to prove that suit properties are the joint family properties.
10. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court, on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:
GROUNDS The Appellants submit that both the Trial & Appellate Courts grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the 1st respondent not having any independent income and the same was purchased by Chinnadurai in the name of the 1st respondent for which late Subramani being a son of Chinnadurai contributed to purchase the same and the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR appellants and late Subramani and respondents enjoying the property as a joint family property. Without giving credence to this aspect both the courts Passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be set aside.
The Appellants submit that the Trial & Appellate Courts grossly erred in holding that the suit schedule property are self acquired property of the 1" respondent even though the 1 respondent is not produced any iota of document to show that she had any earning and the suit schedule property were purchased from her self earrings. In contrary the appellants here adduced the evidence demonstrating that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties, both the courts were without giving credence to this aspect passed the impugned order which is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be set aside.
The Appellants submit that there is no family necessity to sell the suit schedule property of item no 1 to 3and the said documents were created only to deprive the legitimate share of the appellants. The respondents were not produced any documents and evidence to show the legal necessity. Both the courts without giving credenece to this aspect passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be set aside.
The appellant submits that with respect to item no. 4 of the suit schedule property is concerned the appellants specifically adduced the evidence and produced the documents in that effect. The respondents are also not deny the existence of the item no.4 of suit schedule property.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
a) Whether the Trial & Appellate Courts erred in holding that suit schedule properties are self property of 1 respondent contrary to the evidence of PW-1 to PW7?
b) Whether the Trial & Appellate Courts erred in holding that appellants were not entitle for the partition which is contrary to the specific admission of the DW-4 that the appellants and respondents 1-5 constitute a Hindu Undivided family?
c) Whether the Trial & Appellate Courts erred in holding that item no 4 of the suit schedule property is not in existence, which is contrary to the documents which is available in the file?
11. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR
13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, parties are Christians. Therefore, the existence of Hindu Undivided Family would not arise at all.
15. Further, the properties are standing in the name of defendant No.1 at an undisputed point of time. Therefore, they are the self acquired properties and defendant No.1 had every right to execute the sale deed, relinquishment deed or release deed in favour of other defendants.
16. When the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit properties are the joint family properties, the plaintiffs being the wife and daughter of Subramani, who is one of the son of Chinnadurai and Pooshanamma are not entitled for any right in respect of the suit properties which has been rightly considered by both the Courts while
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35228 RSA No. 1756 of 2023 HC-KAR dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs which requires no interference in this appeal.
17. Hence, the following:
ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55