Karnataka High Court
Smt Jamuna Rani vs Smt Jayamma on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT JAMUNA RANI
W/O KUMAR
D/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A AMBEDKAR NAGARA
KERALAPURA ROAD
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPRUA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
ASLO NOW R/AT NO.3265,
4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN
GAYATHIRNAGAR
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 021
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. SMT MOHANA KUMARI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA W/O SUNANDAKUMARA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SMT SANDHYA RANI
D/O RAMANNA D
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT AMBEDKAR NAGARA
KERALAPURA ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPRUA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/A KOTE CHANNAPATNA TOWN
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 160
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O THE RAJ
NO.41, LIC COLONY
BEHIND AYAPPA FARM
YASHWANTHPURA
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 022
2. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE B K NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. SRI SHVIAKUMARA
S/O LATE G K NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SL.NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT
NO.1500, C AND D BLOCK
SANJE RAVI ROAD
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSORE CITY - 570 023
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SMT SANNIRAMMA
W/O CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/AT SRI RAMA NAGARA
HALEKOTE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
5. SRI VASANTH
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A BORANAHALLI VILLAGE
HALEKOTE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
6. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O ANNAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A ANEKANNAMBADI VILLAGE
HALLI MYSORE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
PRESENTLY R/AT A K COLONY
AMBEDKAR NAGAR
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
7. SRI H R RANGASWAMY
S/O RANGAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT PWD QUARTERS
WARD NO.14,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
ARAKALAGUDU TOWN
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
8. SRI DASA PRAKASH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A NEAR VIJAYA VITTALA BHAJANA MANDIR
BAJPE, MANALORE TOWN
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT
PIN - 575 001
9. SRI M S PRADEEP
S/O SHANTHARAJU
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A MALALI VILLAGE
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 124
10. SMT H R SHASHIREKHA
W/O LATE S HANUMANTHAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A WARD NO.20, NEW LAYOUT
DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPIURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
R8 AND R9 SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025,
NOTICE TO R10 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2025,
NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.01.2025,
NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2020
PASSED IN OS NO.137/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE, JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court, while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and hence, she is entitled to a share over the suit schedule properties. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.4 has appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. On the other hand, defendant No.4 herself examined as DW1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.D1 and D2. The other defendants did not lead any evidence.
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, met the issues framed by the Trial Court in comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and that the suit is not barred by limitation as contend by defendant No.4. The Trial Court granted 1/6th share to the plaintiff and also held that defendant Nos.4 to 6 are entitled for 1/2 share along with 1/6thshare. It also comes to the conclusion that mother had passed away prior to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR 09.09.2005 and therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right over the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court also held that sale made by defendant No.4 in respect of Item No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 12 does not bind the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.4 to 6 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.
6. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in appeal memo, formulated the points for determination i.e., i. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiff is entitled for partition?
ii. Whether the Trial Court was justified in partly decreeing the suit holding that as on 2005 Dyavannaiah was not alive as such, the plaintiff is entitled for notional partition in the suit schedule properties? iii. Whether the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff is in time and whether judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires any interference?
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share and other points for consideration were answered as 'negative' and also reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record were modified.
8. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff and defendant No.3 being the daughters of late Dyavanna, they are entitled for 1/4th share each in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Likewise, defendant Nos.1 and 2 being the sons of late Devamma, they together entitled for 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 being the daughters of late Ramanna, they together entitled for 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, equal share were granted in respect of the children of original propositors. Being aggrieved by these -9- NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR concurrent findings, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have preferred the present second appeal.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the suit of the plaintiff for partition and the First Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and erroneously modified the same. It is contended that the Appellate Court committed an error in answering the point Nos.2 to 4 as 'negative' and point No.1 as 'affirmative'. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently contends that the Trial Court by referring to the Phulavati case, had granted 1/6th share, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma, the Trial Court has rightly granted 1/6th share. Hence, it does not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR require any interference or modification in accordance with law.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, it is not in dispute that one Dyavannaiah, propositor and head of the family, had four children, the fourth one is daughter, who filed the suit for claiming partition and made her sister's children as defendant Nos.1 and 2. She arrayed her sister as defendant No.3 and her brother's children as defendant Nos.4 to 6. Hence, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the relationship. It is also not in dispute with regard to the fact that properties belong to the family.
12. The learned counsel appearing per the appellants submits that defendant Nos.4 to 6 have already sold the property, but the plaintiff was not a party to the said sale deed. Hence, such being the case, both the Trial
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR Court and Appellate Court have considered the material available on record in the proper perspective. Since the share of the plaintiff was not given and she was not a party to any alienation and the same was not binding the plaintiff, which has also been observed by the Trial Court while passing the order. Though the trial Court committed an error in apportioning the share, but the First Appellate Court modified the same and has rightly apportioned the share as 1/4th.
13. When such being the case, when the question of law and also facts have been considered by both the Courts, I do not find any error or any perversity in the findings of Trial Court and the Appellate Court in granting the share in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the appeal or to frame substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of the CPC.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49164 RSA No. 704 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32