Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munikrishnappa vs Sri. Bachappa on 2 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50152
RSA No. 929 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.929 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O SULALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT ANAKANUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BACHAPPA
S/O SULALAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT ANAKANUR VILLAGE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KASABA HOBLI
KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLALPURA TALUK
NOW R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
BEECHAGANAHALLI POST
GUDIBANDE TALUK
2. SMT. MUNIRATHANAMMA
W/O PAPAIAH K.N
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT PERESANDRA VILLAGE
MANDIKAL HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50152
RSA No. 929 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O BACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT ANAKANUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLALPURA TALUK
NOW R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
BEECHAGANAHALLI POST
GUDIBANDE TALUK
4. SRI. L.F. PATIL
S/O FAKIRGOWDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT NO.1606, 4TH CORSS
6TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STATE
BENGALURU
5. SRI MITULAL
S/O LATE BHAVARILAL
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/A SY. NO.371
GINAGERI VILLAGE
KOPPALA TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
SRI RAMESH M N, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DT.25.11.2025, NOTICE TO R2 & R5 D/W)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2023 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.13/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50152
RSA No. 929 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that plaintiff and defendant No.1 constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and also it is the contention that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff is entitled for a share in respect of Item No.1 to 10 properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 appeared and filed written statement contending that there was a family partition on 21.04.1989 and hence, the parties have lost the nature of jointness and the family properties by metes and bounds. Hence, there was no status of joint family as on the date of filing of the suit. It is contended that suit schedule properties have been purchased by defendant -4- NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR No.1 and some of the properties by defendant No.3 from their own independent income, thus, they have their self- acquired properties i.e., Item Nos.2, 3, 5 to 8.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and Additional Issue and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of earlier partition of the year 1989 in paragraph 14. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff that in the said partition, half share was allotted to the share of both plaintiff and defendant No.1 and hence, they continued to be joint till today. But defendant No.1 denies the issue and strongly contends that in the said family partition, properties were divided by metes and bounds and there was no jointness after the partition and defendant No.1 independently purchased certain properties. The Trial Court having considered the recital of the said document and also the oral and documentary evidence, in paragraph 16 comes to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR the conclusion that if we carefully peruse the above proposition of law regarding partition and Mitakshara Law, once there is a severance of joint family, if the joint family members intend to continue, they can continue only as tenants in common and there cannot be a partial partition between some of the family members. While affecting partition, it is true that same may be effected partially in respect of properties and joint family members can retain their right to effect partition in respect of some other properties. The Trial Court also taken note of Ex.P8- partition deed and held that Ex.P8 was effected by Sulalappa that is the father of the plaintiff along with his brother Venkatarayappa. When father effects partition, no doubt, partition will be full and complete and if there is any intention seeking for a partial partition, Sulalappa being a father and head of the family as a Kartha would have expressed his intention regarding effecting a partial partition and no provision under Hindu law provides a further to effect an incomplete partition between the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR members of the joint family. Once, partition is effected, it is presumed that the jointness is severed and the members of the joint family will become tenants in common if they continues to enjoy the family properties.
5. The Trial Court also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 in the cross-examination in paragraph 19 and extracting the admission, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that these admissions are very clear that after the severance of joint family under Ex.P8 all the three sons of Sulalappa are residing separately and both plaintiff and defendant No.1 have constructed their respective houses and they are raising crops in their respective 1/4th share and defendant No.1 has got dug a bore-well in his share. These admissions clearly indicate that after the family partition, both plaintiff and defendant No.1 are residing separately and independently by enjoying their respective properties allotted to their share. Admittedly, this Ex.P8, the family partition was effected in year 1989 and the present suit is filed in 2007. The -7- NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR conduct of the plaintiff in keeping silent from 1989 to 2007 itself shows that he was jealous with the improvement caused by defendant No.1 to his properties. Once, defendant No.1 purchased certain properties independently, out of jealous, this plaintiff filed the present suit just to harass defendant No.1 knowing fully well that those properties were purchased by defendant No.1 from his own income.
6. The Trial Court having considered the admission on the part of PW1 as well as even considered the admission on the part of PW2 and PW3, who were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and in their affidavits in chief, they have supported the case of plaintiff. But PW2 Narayanappa claims himself to be an attesting witness to Ex.P17 which is a Will executed by the mother of plaintiff Eramma. In his cross-examination also he admitted that in the survey number mentioned in the Will, Munikrishnappa and Bachappa each having 7½ guntas. Apart from that PW3 evidence also extracted in paragraph 21 wherein he -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR categorically admits that after the partition, the plaintiff and defendant and the father and also the brother Chennappa are cultivating the property separately to the extent of 1/4th share. He also admits that the Will was executed by his father in favour of Munikrishnappa and Bachappa and in terms of the said Will also they are cultivating the property to the extent of 7½ guntas and so also the admission on the part of PW4 is also extracted.
7. The Trial Court having considered all these materials comes to the conclusion that there is no existence of joint family and subsequent to the partition in the year 1989 they are independently cultivating the property to the extent of 1/4th share and also constructed the separate house and also material discloses that the defendants have purchased other items of the property. Having considered the material on record, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative and Issue Nos.3 and 4 as affirmative and Additional Issue also as affirmative with regard to the claim made by defendant -9- NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR No.3 that defendant No.1 had purchased the properties independently out of his income. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.13/2021.
8. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the points for consideration. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record considered the document of Ex.P8 and held that the intention of the parties were also very clear that they wanted to live independently since there is persistent difference of opinion between the parties. The First Appellate Court also considered the admission on the part of witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 wherein all the witnesses have categorically admitted that there was a division and also cultivating separately even not only the partitioned property even in terms of the Will executed by the father to the extent of 7½ guntas also they are cultivating separately and the same was taken note of in paragraphs
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR 32 to 37. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the documentary evidence which are marked in paragraph 38 and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the case of the plaintiff. The counsel also brought to notice of the Court to the recitals of Ex.P8 and would vehemently contend that though there was a division in the year 1989 but properties was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and defendant jointly and there was no any division among them. The counsel would vehemently contend that there is a perversity in the finding of both the Courts. Hence, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR matter requires to be admitted framing substantial question of law.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that though document stands in joint name but they are cultivating the properties separately and both Trial Court and First Appellate Court taken note of admission of the part of PW1 to PW4 as well as even with regard to the partition of the year 1989 and subsequently, the execution of the Will and in terms of the Will also cultivating separately and the same is elicited from the mouth of PW3 so also PW4. All these materials were considered and held that Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the case of the plaintiff.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that there is no dispute between the parties that there was a partition in the year 1989 but only
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR contention of the appellant that in the year 1989 partition was effected among the three sons and father jointly allotted the share in favour of the plaintiff and defendant and they are cultivating together and the properties are acquired out of the joint nucleus. In order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that the Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 as well as PW2 to PW4 and so also discussion was made with regard to the admission by the Trial Court. The Trial Court considering the admission on the part of PW2 and PW3 wherein they categorically admitted the partition and cultivating the property 1/4th share of the plaintiff and defendant separately and the evidence of PW4 also considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also taken note of other suit in O.S.No.145/2010 filed by one of the daughter. When already there was a partition and also there is a clear admission on the part of PW1 as well as his own witnesses PW2 to PW4 that there was a division and separately cultivating the properties and they are enjoying
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR the properties including construction of their respective houses, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 had purchased the properties out of his own income and dismissed the case of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the material on record in paragraphs 33 to 39 holding that there was a division and also enjoying the properties separately to the extent of 1/4th share and also discussed the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4 in paragraphs 31 to 33 and also taken note of the status of document Ex.P8 in paragraph 29 and held that no doubt, as per Ex.P5, P13 and P15 the RTC extracts are stands in the joint name. But categorical admission given by the plaintiff and his witnesses clinches that the RTCs were kept intact, but they are residing separately and cultivating the properties separately. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the finding of both the Courts since, both question of fact and question of law are considered rightly by both the Courts. Hence, no ground is made out
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50152 RSA No. 929 of 2023 HC-KAR to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN