Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs Lakshmamma on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49215
RSA No. 1539 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. 1539 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE BETTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. RAMEGOWDA,
S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SUDHA.
W/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT HARAVU VILLAGE,
Digitally signed CHINAKUARALI HOBLI,
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH PANDAVAPURA TALUK.
COURT OF MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA D.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
LAKSHMAMMA W/O. PUTTASWAMY,
D/O. PAPEGOWDA
R/OF SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE
K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49215
RSA No. 1539 of 2024
HC-KAR
1. SMT. MANJULA.
W/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF MANDYADA KOPPALU VILLAGE,
HARAKERE HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.
2. REKHA,
W/O RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3015,
GOKULAM 1ST STAGE,
GOKULAM MAIN ROAD,
V.V.MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 570 001.
3. P. AJAY,
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2024
PASSED IN RA NO. 5029/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT, MANDYA
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
14.01.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.23/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49215
RSA No. 1539 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in length.
4. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that Item No. 1 of the property is the self-acquired property of Papegowda and Item No.2 property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. They further contended that during the lifetime of Papegowda, he himself effected a -4- NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 HC-KAR partition in respect of Item No.1 of the property and allotted the same to his two sons in equal shares.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the defendants examined 3 witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D9.
6. Upon considering both the oral and documentary evidence, it is not in dispute that the property belongs to the father of Papegowda. The only contention raised is that a partition had taken place during the lifetime of the father as per Ex.D2. However, Ex.D2 is not a registered document, and no material is placed on record to establish that the parties acted upon the said document. Except relying upon Exs.D8 and D9, the tax paid receipts, the death certificate (Ex.D5), and certain -5- NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 HC-KAR bank receipts(Exs.D3 and 4), no supporting evidence has been produced.
7. The Trial Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share. While arriving at this conclusion, the Trial Court observed that there are no materials to believe the version of the defendants. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have produced the oral evidence of one of the attesting witnesses as DW-3, whose evidence supported their case; however, except eliciting that the guardian was defendant No.3, nothing substantial was brought out in his cross-examination. Hence, the Trial Court allowed the notional partition and accordingly granted 1/9th share to the plaintiff.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal in R.A. No.5029/2020. The Appellate Court, after considering the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the point as to whether the Trial Court was justified in granting 1/9th share over suit schedule -6- NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 HC-KAR properties and whether the judgment and decree calls for interference. Upon reassessing the entire material on record, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that though Exhibit D2 was relied upon, it is an unregistered document and has not been acted upon. It is further held that the suit schedule properties continued to remain as joint family properties in the hands of the children of Papegowda. By considering Section 6A and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and accordingly, modified the judgment of the Trial Court, which had granted only a notional share.
9. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the appellants have urged that the First Appellate Court committed an error in granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. It is their contention that there was a partition between the two brothers on 15.06.1991, and the RTC entries clearly disclose such a division. It is further contended that the First Appellate -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 HC-KAR Court had committed an error in granting an equal 1/3rd share instead of a notional share of 1/9th, on the ground that there was no registered partition between the father and his sons, which finding is unsustainable. The appellants also submit that the Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment in Vineetha Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma case. Hence, this Court ought to admit the appeal and frame substantial questions of law.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and on perusal of the pleadings, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that Item No.1 is the self-acquired property of Papegowda and Item No.2 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. However, defendant No.2 has not produced any document to substantiate that Item No.2 is his exclusive -8- NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 HC-KAR property. It is also not in dispute that the properties were acquired by Papegowda. Admittedly, Papegowda did not execute any testamentary document disposing of his properties and when such being the case, he died intestate, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs.
11. Though the defendants rely upon Ex.D2, is inadmissible document and the same is unregistered document. Apart from that, no material has been placed on record to show that the parties have acted upon the said document. The Appellate Court has rightly comes to the conclusion that Ex.D2 cannot be relied upon, particularly when the plaintiff is not a party to the said document. When such being the case, the plaintiff, being the legal heirs of Papegowda are entitled to 1/3rd share.When such material was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to a share. The only error committed by the Trial Court was in holding that she is entitled only to a -9- NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 HC-KAR notional share, which has been rightly rectified by the First Appellate Court by holding that she is entitled to an equal share and not merely 1/9th share. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineetha Sharma (supra), the Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and not a notional share. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal or to frame any substantial question of law, and it is not a case for invoking Section 100 of the CPC.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41