Karnataka High Court
D M Ranganatha vs Chikkamuddappa on 12 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
RSA No. 1528 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. D.M. RANGANATHA
S/O MALERANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE
MUDDANERELKERE MAJARA
I.D. HALLI HBLI
MADHUGIRI TAUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKAMUDDAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. LINGAMMA
W/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY RESPONDENT NO.2 HER LRS
OF DECEASED HAVE ALREADY RECORD BY
NAMELY RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 5.
3. MALERANGAPPA
S/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
RSA No. 1528 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. MUDDARANGAMMA
W/O PUTTALINGAPPA
D/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE
MUDDANERALEKER MAJARA
I.D. HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
5. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O MYLARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT ARASAPURA VILLAGE
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5;
SRI. B.S.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R3 TO R5 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R2,
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
RSA No. 1528 of 2024
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 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.3
2. This second appeal is against the concurrent finding against defendant No.6, who is a stranger to the family and an application is filed before this Court i.e., I.A.No.1/2025 for production of additional documents.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that already there was a partition of joint family properties about 15 years back between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and as such, there exists no joint family properties. It is also the contention that parties are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares in view of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR the said partition. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition.
5. The Trial Court having framed the issues considered the pleadings of both the parties and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 12 and also examined a witness as P.W.2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1, defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.2 and he got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D3 and a witness was examined as D.W.3, but he did not tender himself for cross-examination. The defendant No.2 got examined herself as D.W.4.
6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants, but not accepted the case of the defendants that there was already a partition and while considering the defence, the Trial Court in paragraph No.19 comes to the conclusion that in the name of defendant No.1 alone some of the properties were standing and some of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR suit properties are standing in the joint names of defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and mode of acquisition is evidence from RTC Extracts which has already been produced and there was no partition effected between plaintiff and defendants with respect to suit schedule properties till this date. Though it is contented that there was a partition and the same is not substantiated and suit schedule properties are not mutated till date in pursuance of the said alleged partition. The defendant No.6 claims that there was a gift deed and the same came into existence in 2016 and suit was filed in 2013, but not led any evidence and placed the Gift deed before the Trial Court and except filing the written statement, not entered into the witness box.
7. The appeal is filed by defendant No.6 before the First Appellate Court. Before the First Appellate Court also not produced any documentary evidence invoking Order 47 Rule 27 CPC. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record, particularly taking note of evidence of witnesses comes to the conclusion that defendant No.6 has not placed iota of document by showing item No.2 is the self- -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR property of defendant No.1. Moreover, defendant No.1 himself admitted in his written statement that suit item No.2 is the ancestral property in the undisputed point of time. This suit is filed in the year 2013 and defendant No.1 filed his written statement in the year 2013 itself. But, defendant No.6 alleged that gift deed was executed in the year 2016. So, it is very clear that at the undisputed point of time, defendant No.1 has taken contention in his written statement that item No.2 is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and these defendants and this aspect has been discussed in paragraph No.22 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court and defendant No.1 has set up a plea regarding partition. But, during the course of trial, defendant No.1 failed to prove the said contention by showing proper document. Hence, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.2 and 3 as 'negative' and in order to prove the fact that there was a partition also, nothing is placed on record. However, it is the contention of defendant No.6 that defendant No.1 executed a gift deed. But, he was not having any exclusive right to bequeath item No.2 in favour of defendant No.6 once there is a clear admission that item No.2 is the ancestral property and defendant No.1 was not having any -7- NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR exclusive right to execute the gift deed. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. In this second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that there was a partition and the said document was not produced before both the Courts. But, now learned counsel for the appellant wants to produce the document of partition deed and the same is not a registered document and is not admissible in evidence. However, along with the application, he has produced the gift deed before this Court. But, not made any efforts before the Trial Court and even the First Appellate Court to produce the gift deed. Apart from that, gift deed came into existence in the year 2016 and the First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.22 taken note that suit was filed in 2013 and written statement was filed in the year 2013 itself, wherein also defendant No.1 categorically admitted that item No.2 of the schedule property is an ancestral property and the appellant/defendant No.6 also claims that a gift deed was executed and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 was not having any exclusive -8- NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR right to gift the property in favour of defendant No.6, since he was not having any absolute right and the said document also came into existence during the pendency of the suit. When such being the case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that even though defendant No.6 has come on record before the Trial Court, but except filing the written statement, not produced any evidence and not utilized the opportunity and filed any documents before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and not diligent.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no opportunity was given before the Court and the fact that he appeared and filed the written statement is not in dispute. But, not led any evidence and produced any document. Even if any application is filed before the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellant has to substantiate his case by showing sufficient cause for non-production of the document and comply with Order 41 Rule 27(a)(aa) CPC. When such being the case, question of entertaining the application in second appeal does not arise unless sufficient reason is -9- NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR assigned and if he has taken due care while conducting the case before the Trial Court and if the document was not in his custody, then the Court can consider the same. But, it is his case that gift deed was executed in the year 2016 itself but, the suit was disposed of in the year 2022. However, the appellant has not made any efforts to produce the same, that too during the pendency of the suit and the Executant of the gift deed was also not having any absolute right to execute the gift deed in respect of item No.2. When such being the case and when there is a clear admission that item No.2 is the ancestral property, defendant No.1 cannot convey any right in favour of the appellant herein. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties is concerned and the property is an ancestral joint family property and the First Appellate Court has rightly considered the material. Hence, no ground is made up to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52859 RSA No. 1528 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38