Karnataka High Court
Smt. Siddalingamma vs Smt. Udayalakshmi on 7 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.813 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A HOLDER
SRI. D.RAMESH,
SON OF LATE DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
Digitally signed MADHURE HOBLI
by DEVIKA M
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
Location: HIGH BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PIN CODE-561 206.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI AND
SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. UDAYALAKSHMI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF G.V.NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT SABHASH NAGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIVISION NO.1
BEHIND MILK DIARY
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 203.
2. SMT. UMA DEVI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT SABHASH NAGAR
DIVISION NO.1
BEHIND MILK DIARY
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 203.
3. SMT.B.N.NAGAVENI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF K.N.MUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.512/2
VINAYAKA NAGARA
4TH WARD, COURT ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 203.
4. SRI.M. NANJAPPA
SON OF MUDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 206.
5. SMT. PREMA KUMARI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF NAGENDRA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 206.
6. SMT.MANGALAGOWRI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF MUTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT
TAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE
SAKKAREGOLLALI HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 204.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 13.12.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding granting 1/6th share in favour of the plaintiffs, who are daughters of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also the daughters of defendant No.1.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and contend that the partition entered between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiffs.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and mainly contend that suit is filed only with an intention to harass -5- NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.4 and the same is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have alienated Sy.No.215/16 to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas to one Sathish on 21.02.2012 and the said property is not included in the suit and suit schedule properties are also self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 in partition between the family members. Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties by oversight had fallen to the share of defendant No.1, but actually item No.1 of the property was also allotted to defendant No.4 and thereafter, rectification of the same by the defendant No.1 and 4 and they have jointly partitioned through and item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted to defendant No.4 under registered partition and revenue records mutated in the name of defendant No.4 and from the date of partition, the defendant No.4 is in physical possession of the said land and she is cultivating the same and paying the necessary taxes to the concerned Department. The suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and now, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 colluded with each other and filed the suit.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the plaint as well as grounds urged in the written statement framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the GPA holder of defendant No.4 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 and D2.
6. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and partition between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiffs and also taken note of certified copy of sale deed dated 21.12.2012 at Ex.D2 and the very contention of the defendants that property which was sold in favour of one Sathish under sale deed at Ex.D2 on 21.12.2012 was not included in the suit. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that property which was sold on 21.12.2012 is for family necessity with the consent of all the parties and the said contention -7- NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR cannot be accepted. The Trial Court also while considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties devolves upon the father i.e., defendant No.1 vide partition deed dated 15.07.2010 and the same are joint family properties which devolves upon the grand-father Ramaiah and comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 had no exclusive right to execute any deed in favour of defendant No.4 without the consent of his children i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and also comes to the conclusion that partition deed between defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on them and decreed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5/2022. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the points whether the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective and whether impugned judgment requires interference. The First Appellate Court having taken note of the fact that suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties as the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR same were acquired by the father i.e., defendant No.1 through registered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 which is marked as Ex.P9 and also taken note that though defendant No.1 filed the written statement, but he has stated no objection to allot equal share to the plaintiffs in item Nos.2 to 5. It is also further contended that plaintiffs are no way concerned to item No.1, but he did not choose to substantiate the same by examining himself as witness before the Court. The First Appellate Court has taken note of documents at Exs.P9 and P10 and Ex.P19 is intersay between defendant Nos.1 and 4 and also taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 has not challenged the alienation made by the father long back and the said alienation was made with consent of the plaintiffs and they are not willing to seek any share which is observed in paragraph No.15 of the judgment and comes to the conclusion that the question of including the alienated properties of dismissing the suit for non- joinder of necessary parties and properties does not arise. The First Appellate Court also taken note of item No.1 is also an ancestral property of defendant Nos.1 and 4, if they have entered into any such partition in terms of Ex.P10 and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR and also taken note of the recital made in Ex.P10 for having made the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant No.1 in terms of the partition of the year 2014 and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. Learned for the appellant in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of partition in favour of the plaintiffs and other defendants i.e., 1/6th share. The counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts have misread the pleadings i.e., both oral and documentary evidence on record and without proper appreciation of evidence on record, committed an error in appreciating the documents of Exs.P1 to P10 and Exs.D1 and D2 and not justified in granting the relief without considering the subsisting right of the appellant over the suit schedule properties i.e., item No.1 of the property. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties though the fact is that alienation is for legal necessity and for the benefits of the members of the family and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR the same as satisfactorily proved by the defendant No.4 and the said contention is also taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. But, failed to consider the earlier sale made by the defendant No.1.
9. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the order passed by this Court in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.470/2023 dated 07.03.2025, wherein this Court allowed the petition and observed that plaint stands rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.
10. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this case is that when already there was sale made in terms of Ex.D2 and the same was not challenged and with regard to the said aspect also, answer was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that said sale is made for family necessity and both the Courts have taken note of Ex.P9 i.e., certified copy of registered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 under which the father had derived title in respect of all the items of the suit schedule properties and also taken note of earlier sale which was also a consented sale and none of the plaintiffs have claimed any share in respect of the properties which was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR already sold in terms of Ex.D12. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the same was not questioned and non-inclusion of the purchaser as party to the proceedings does not arise. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the subsequent document of registered partition deed dated 13.05.2014 interse between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is also not binding and this document of partition came into existence on 13.05.2014 and the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to the same. Hence, both the Courts comes to the conclusion that the same is not binding on them. When such being the material on record, when they are not parties to the partition deed, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that partition deed dated 13.05.2014 entered between defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. When such finding is given and detailed order has been passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and when the properties are ancestral properties and 1/6th share has been granted, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24370 RSA No. 813 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68