Karnataka High Court
Chikkegowda vs B K Lokesha on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1327 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKEGOWDA
S/O SURAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/O BUGUDANAHALLI,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKRU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.K. LOKESHA,
S/O B.S.KEMPANANJAPPA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O BUGUDANAHALLI,
by DEVIKA M BELLAVI TALUK,
Location: HIGH TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE B.S.KEMPAJAMMA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
3. SMT. ANNAPURNA,
W/O LINGEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
D/O LATE B.S.KEMPAJAMMA,
R/O AT NALLURU VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK.
4. SIDDAMMA,
W/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA,
AGED 61 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
5. MUNIRAJ,
S/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
6. ANANDA,
S/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA,
AGED 46 YEATRS,
R/O BUDUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
7. MANJAMMA,
W/O KUMAR,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/O YELIYUR VILLAGE,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTIRCT.
8. SAROJAMMA,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/O C/O GORKAR KEMPANNA,
CHELUR VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. KUMARI @ KANYAKUMARI,
W/0 NADISHA,
AGED 45 YEARS,
R/O VIJAYA UPAHARA,
SIT MAIN ROAD, MARALURU
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU.
10. GANGAMMA
W/O GDIYAPPA,
D/O SURAPPA,
AGED 73 YEARS,
R/O KODIYALA VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
11. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O NANJUDASWAMY.
D/O SURAPPA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
R/O AADHI HOSAHALLY,
MUDDLINGANAHALLI POST,
NELAMANAGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
12. BYRAPPA,
S/O MUDDAPPA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
R/O SHANTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU.
13. THANUJA,
D/O BYRAPPA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/O LAKSHIMIPURA,
CHIKKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. LATHA W/O GURURAJ,
D/O SURAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/AT VADDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ARUDI POST,
GOWRIBIDANNURU TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
15. GURUPRASAD S/O SURAPPA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
16. NARASEGOWDA,
S/O SURAPPA,
AGED 51 YEATS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
17. BORAMMA W/O SURAPPA,
AGED 82 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.52/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.24/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, specifically pleaded that the plaintiff along with defendant Nos.1 to 6 constituted the joint family and scheduled properties are ancestral properties. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 took the contention that defendant No.1 separated from the joint family and also considering the written statement filed by defendant No.5, additional issue also framed that whether the 5th defendant proved that Gowramma had executed the registered Will dated 21.07.1992 jointly in favour of Narasegowda and the 5th defendant in respect of some of the properties as contended in the written statement and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR also whether the 5th defendant proves that the sale proceeds of the crops grown in the properties fallen to him under the Will dated 21.07.1992 and his own earnings, he has purchased the suit schedule Item No.11 of the property and whether it is a self-acquired property and also considering the defence of the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6, it is contended that 1st defendant has sold the suit schedule Item No.2 property in favour of 2nd defendant for family necessity, whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 proves that suit schedule Item No.4 to 7, 9 and 10 properties are the self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant and suit schedule Item No.8 is the streedhana property of Boramma, whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 2nd defendant is living separately by enjoying the properties acquired under the registered gift deed dated 12.12.1963 and whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 2nd defendant has sold the suit Item No.8 to 10 properties and the lands bearing Sy.No.41/3A, 41/2 and 75/2 as averred in the written statement and also whether -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 1st defendant has executed the registered Will dated 29.08.1988 as contended in the written statement.
3. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. Having considered the evidence available on record, answered the Issue No.1 and 2 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that they constitute the joint family and properties are the ancestral properties and also answered the other Issue Nos.3 and 4 as negative. However, answered the Issue No.5 as affirmative that there is a cause of action and additional Issues Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 framed on different dates were also answered as negative and additional Issue No.4 dated 12.01.2018 answered in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that property was already sold i.e., defendant No.2 in respect of Item Nos.8 to 10 and answered other additional Issue No.5 and 6 as negative and comes to the conclusion that Will which was propounded is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and even though the document -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR is registered and examined the witness, attesting witness, but, document clearly discloses that Will came into existence in a suspicious circumstances that has been discussed in paragraph Nos.43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 while answering Issue No.6 dated 12.01.2018 and also taken note of admittedly the properties sold by the 2nd defendant are acquired by him under a registered gift deed dated 12.12.1963 executed by Narasegowda who is the brother of the 1st defendant. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.25 are the certified copies of the said gift deed and also admitted fact that the said properties gifted by Narasegowda in favour of defendant No.2 are acquired by him under the registered partition deed dated 03.01.1957. The D.W.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of execution of the said gift deed, the defendant No.2 was a minor and aged about 10 years and the defendant No.1 has represented as natural guardian of the minor of defendant No.2. Such being the facts and circumstances of the properties gifted by Narasegowda in favour of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.2 will become his self-acquired properties and the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in it under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff has neither challenged the said sale transaction nor any right to do so as the same are not devolved to the plaintiff and hence, the purchasers of the properties from defendant No.2 are not just and necessary parties to the suit since, the very ground was taken and hence, definite conclusion was given by the Trial Court in granting the relief by partly decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share out of 2.37½ /18 share of the deceased 2nd defendant in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds since the sale of the suit sale Item No.2 property in favour of the 7th defendant is not for the family necessity and benefit of the family and transaction is not binding on the share of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and hence, granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, first appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having re- assessed both oral and documentary evidence in view of the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff in not accepting the Will as propounded by the defendant and on evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion and answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 and other Issues as negative and so also in respect of the sale of the property by defendant No.2 also accepted the reasoning of the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing to the appellant that
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR in respect of the father of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed suit in O.S.No.62/1993 against the appellant and other respondents also with respect to Item Nos.1 to 10 properties have got dismissed as settled out of Court. In the above said circumstances, the suit is not maintainable. The counsel would vehemently contend that in the absence of pleading of proof by the plaintiff with regard to the joint family having nucleus to purchase the property in the name of defendant No.1, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court not right in decreeing the suit. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the registered Will dated 20.04.2017 was executed and the same is proved in terms of Section 68, ought not to have granted the relief in respect of the said properties and both the Courts have committed an error and hence, this Court has to admit and framed substantive question of law.
6. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also considering the material available on record, particularly the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the defendants and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR also the additional Issues which have been framed and the same has been considered by the Trial Court and Trial Court comes to the conclusion that they constitute the joint family and properties are an ancestral properties and also with regard to the contention of the defendant No.1, 3 to 6 that already defendant No.1 separated from the joint family was not accepted and also the contention of the defendant that there was a registered Will dated 21.07.1992 and in terms of the said Will, he was having his own earnings and he has purchased suit schedule property and it was turned down by the Trial Court since the very Will which was marked as Ex.P.18 comes to the conclusion that disinheriting the property of the very legal heirs of the executant of the Will is a suspicious circumstances and also taken note of the circumstances under which the document came into existence in paragraph No.42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 in detail taken note of Ex.D.18 and also taken note of 6th defendant is unmarried daughter of the 1st defendant. The D.W.1 admitted in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR cross-examination that defendant Nos.3 and 6 are handicapped. The D.W.2 also deposed that 3rd defendant is also handicapped persons and considering the material available on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that excluding the 2nd defendant, it reveal that the mind of the testator was not free while executing the document of Ex.D.18 and also taken note of the 1st defendant has given the family properties 2 to 3 times to the 2nd defendant and he has sold the same. It is not the case of the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 that the 1st defendant has given such family properties to the 2nd defendant and having taken note of the material available on record, rightly comes to the conclusion that Will has not been proved as propounded by the defendant No.5 and so also with regard to the self acquisition based on the said Will properties and also considering the material on record, rightly comes to the conclusion that Will is surrounded with the suspicious circumstances.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. The First Appellate Court also in detail considered the material on record and on re-appreciation of the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that whether the said Will is executed in a suspicious circumstances and also taken note of the natural heirs have been disinherited and also no such reason is assigned for disinheriting the other natural heirs and confirmed the same. When such finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, this Court only in a case where the perversity is found in appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence can admit the second appeal and the same is not found in the reasoning of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law by invoking Section 100 of CPC.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815 RSA No. 1327 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Second appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44