Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narasimhaiah vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
RSA No. 612 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.612 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT BALAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK &
DISTRICT-561211
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
by DEVIKA M W/O B H NANJUNDAPPA,
Location: HIGH D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
KARNATAKA R/AT BALAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 561211
2. SMT. SAKAMMA @ PUTTANARASAMMA
W/O NARAYANA,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT No.3944,
2ND CROSS, B BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560021
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
RSA No. 612 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
4. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PARTIES AT SL.NOS.3 & 4 ARE
R/AT BALAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-561211
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2023.
PASSED IN R.A. NO.34/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA 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:46684
RSA No. 612 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants took the defence that there was a palupatti dated 10.01.2004 and defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in terms of the said palupatti. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P67. On the other hand, defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 to D23. The Trial Court having -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46684 RSA No. 612 of 2024 HC-KAR considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that even if there is any palupatti, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs since they are not parties to the said palupatti. Based on that palupatti, the defendants cannot claim their possession over the suit schedule properties and there was no any partition among the children of Chinnappa. Hence, the granted the relief of partition of 1/6th share each in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.34/2021. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Point that whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference of the Court. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the fact the counsel for cross appellant has submitted that some properties were allotted to the share of sons of Gorlappa and some properties were allotted to the share of Narasimhaiah. They have produced the RTC pertaining to the property and either Gorlappa or his sons have been made as parties before the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46684 RSA No. 612 of 2024 HC-KAR Trial Court. Only in respect of the properties allotted to the Narasimhaiah, his sisters have filed the suit claiming share in the properties. Now, defendant No.2 who is the cross appellant placed his argument that the properties allotted to Gorlappa is also the joint family properties. In the absence of children of Gorlappa either in this appeal or before the Trial Court, it cannot be held that there is discrimination in the allotment of share between the parties. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that when there was no partition between the plaintiffs and defendants, do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in appreciating the same thus, 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.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not considered the material on record in a proper perspective. The counsel also contend that when there was a palupatti in writing dated 10.01.2004 which was earlier to amendment of provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and mutation also made on the basis of the said palupatti, the same was not -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46684 RSA No. 612 of 2024 HC-KAR taken note by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the specific case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and there was no any partition and no share was given to them. The Trial Court also considered the very defence taken by defendant No.4 that he is in possession of the suit schedule property based on the palupatti and in the said palupatti, the plaintiffs are not the parties to the said division. When such being the case, excluding the plaintiffs, there cannot be any partition when they are having right over the suit schedule property. Hence, I do not find any error in the findings of both the Courts since both the Courts have properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share each along with defendant Nos.1 to 4 having taken note of the factual aspects and question of law. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46684 RSA No. 612 of 2024 HC-KAR appeal and frame substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
7. In view of he discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN