Karnataka High Court
Udhayashankar M R vs Arundathi M R on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46319
RSA No. 1256 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. UDHAYASHANKAR M R,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. RAMESH M R,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O MENASAMAKKI VILLAGE,
BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DIST, PIN-573214.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PULAKESHI A P,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUNDATHI M R,
Digitally W/O PRAKASH,
signed by C AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
HONNUR SAB MULLURU VILLAGE,
Location: SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI,
HIGH COURT SOMAVARAPETE TALUK,
OF KODAGU DISTRICT, PIN-571235.
KARNATAKA
2. SHILAJA M R,
W/O JAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
DADADHAHALLI VILLAGE,
ALUR POST AND TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573213.
(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DT 28.02.2024)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46319
RSA No. 1256 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2022 PASSED IN
RA.NO.19/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.07.2019
PASSED IN OS.NO.132/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the appellants counsel and also counsel appearing for the respondents. This matter is listed for admission and the second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court by seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that the suit schedule property are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs and defendants are joint family members and also it is contended that defendants by creating false genealogical tree got divided the suit schedule properties between themselves under a registered partition deed -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46319 RSA No. 1256 of 2022 HC-KAR dated 07.10.2013. The same is not binding on their share and they are entitled for 1/4th share in item No.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties. The parties were allowed to lead evidence and plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to 21 were marked. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to 10.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence particularly Ex.P1 to 21 comes to the conclusion that properties are joint family properties. Defence was taken by the defendants that one of the item number properties was sold in terms of Ex.D6 that too for the marriage of the first plaintiff and inspite of it, Trial Court granted the relief of partition and the Trial Court having considered even though the property was sold, no claim was made in respect of the said property and only share is claimed in respect of the suit schedule properties which have been mentioned in the schedule. The plaintiffs are also the daughters and though there was an inter-se -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46319 RSA No. 1256 of 2022 HC-KAR partition between the defendants and same cannot bind the plaintiffs and hence, granted the relief of partition.
4. Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal is filed and Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material on record and particularly considering both oral and documentary evidence and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma1 case and also the partition was effected between them subsequent to the amendment to Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal is filed before this Court and the main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Court below failed to consider the document Ex.D6 in a proper perspective and judgment and decree of Trial Courts is contrary to the facts and 1 (2019) 6 SCC 162 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46319 RSA No. 1256 of 2022 HC-KAR circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame the substantial questions of law.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that no dispute with regard to the sale of property with regard to Ex.D6 and the same is a certified copy of the sale deed and in respect of the property which was sold not claimed any share, only in respect of the existing properties in the family and also all of them are in joint possession. Hence, entitled for a share and the same was considered by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and even while considering issue No.2 and 3 have taken note of the admission on the part of DW-1 during his cross-examination and he categorically admits in Ex.D7 that plaintiffs are not the parties and hence, have not committed any error.
7. I have heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and considering the material on record, and though the defendants claim -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46319 RSA No. 1256 of 2022 HC-KAR that there was a partition in terms of Ex.D7 and admittedly in the said partition, plaintiffs are not the parties when the property belongs to the family and when the parties i.e. the defendants excluded the plaintiffs at the time of partitioning the property, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs on the very contention that Ex.D6 the evidence that one of the properties was sold and no dispute with regard to the said fact in respect of the property of Ex.D6 and the same is not included in the suit for partition. Even if that property is sold, that is for the maintenance of the family and none of the parties have questioned the same and even though counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that same is shown for performing the marriage of plaintiffs. The same cannot be a ground to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in considering both oral and documentary evidence and the Appellate Court also by reconsidering the appeal exercised power under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46319 RSA No. 1256 of 2022 HC-KAR Procedure and reassessed the same particularly in paragraphs No.15, 16, 17 and 18 and in paragraph No.18 also made an observation that married daughters are also entitled for their share along with the liability if any on those properties. But no such liabilities are also found. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit this appeal to frame substantial questions of law.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following;
ORDER
i) The Regular Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 .