Karnataka High Court
Sunandamma vs A.B. Byregowda on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SUNANDAMMA
D/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
HOSUE HOLD WORK,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE:577 168.
2. A B SHANKARAPPA
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
PANKAJA S
NAGENAHALLI POST,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KADUR TALUK,
KARNATAKA CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
3. A B CHANDRAPPA
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
PIN CODE:577 168.
4. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT GUNASAGARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
5. SMT SANNAMMA
W/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
6. SMT CHANDRAMMA
W/O BOMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
7. SMT PARVATHAMMA
W/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH H.B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
A.B. BYREGOWDA
S/O BASVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED - ABSENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN
RA NO.78/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
KADUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
ORDER DATED 30.10.2015 PASSED IN FDP NO.09/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KADUR.
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.54 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff - Sunandamma in OS.No.275/2000 along with respondents in FDP.No.9/2007 are before this Court in this regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 passed in R.A.No.78/2015.
2. Sunandamma has filed the suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants - A.B.Byregowda, A.B.Shankarappa and A.B.Chandrappa (i.e., the respondent, appellant Nos.2 and 3 in this appeal respectively) by claiming 1/4th share and mesne profit in the suit schedule properties.
3. After service of suit summons, A.B.Shankarappa and A.B.Chandrappa by filing the written statement admitted the entire plaint averments and also admitted to decree the suit by allotting 1/4th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. However, A.B.Byregowda in his written has taken up a contention that apart from the suit schedule property, there are three other properties belonging to their joint family.
4. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and documents on record, partly allowed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled to 9/40th share in the suit schedule item -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48087 RSA No. 1635 of 2019 HC-KAR Nos.1 to 4 and written statement item Nos.1 to 3 properties vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006.
5. After decreeing the suit, defendant - A.B.Byregowda has filed FDP proceedings in FDP No.9/2007 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur (for brevity "FDP Court") against Sunandamma, A.B.Shankarappa, A.B.Chandrappa and the other female legal heirs of the joint family of plaintiff and defendants. The said proceedings were allowed and the decree passed by the Trial Court was executed.
6. The said order passed in FDP proceedings was questioned by Sunandamma, A.B.Shankarappa, A.B.Chandrappa and other female legal heirs of their joint family before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.78/2015.
7. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Commissioner's report and the survey sketch submitted by the Taluka Surveyor is in accordance with preliminary decree passed in the suit and the appellants therein have not pointed out any material defect in the Commissioner's report. Aggrieved by the same, Sunandamma, A.B.Shankarappa, -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48087 RSA No. 1635 of 2019 HC-KAR A.B.Chandrappa and other female legal heirs of their joint family are before this Court.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the entire evidence on record and also the documents placed before this Court.
9. Paragraph No.12 of the order passed in FDP No.9/2007 reads as under:
"12. On perusal of Tahasildar report alongwith the sketch prepared by the Surveyor, it reveals that before measure the property all the parties have received notice and the respondent No.2 and village elders have signed the mahazar It shows that the Tahasildar through his surveyor effected partition of schedule properties in the presence of both parties. It is not case of the respondents that the surveyor not allotted the respondents shares separately. When conducting auction of house property the respondents jointly taken said house as their share. It shows that there is no dispute in between the respondents and they have live together. Accordingly the share allotted to the respondent in jointly and petitioners share -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48087 RSA No. 1635 of 2019 HC-KAR separately as a block No.1 in all the schedule property is in accordance with law. With these observations the objection filed by the respondents is not sustainable and the report submitted by the Tahasildar is liable to be accepted. The report further reveals that the parties to the proceedings already taken their respective shares before the panchas and Tahasildar. Hence, this court allots the shares out of the suit schedule properties as per report submitted by the Court commissioner."
10. In view of the above findings and also considering the fact that the Commissioner's report and the survey sketch submitted by the Taluka surveyor is in accordance with the preliminary decree passed in the suit and the appellants herein have not pointed out any material defect in the Commissioner's report, the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal. As such, I find no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23