Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala vs Sri Kiran M Pethi on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
RSA No. 687 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.687 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O. SIDDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DEVARATHOPU
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
PIN CODE: 572 127.
2. SMT. KANAKALAKSHMI
W/O. VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT YERRSANIPALLI
THAMBALAPALLI MANDAL
MADNAPALLI TALUK
Digitally signed CHITTOOR DISTRICT
by DEVIKA M
ANDRAPRADESH
Location: HIGH PIN CODE: 517 418.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KIRAN M. PETHI
S/O. MANIARUS M. PETHI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEASR
R/AT MAIDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
PIN CODE: 577 127.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
RSA No. 687 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SRI. R.B. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O. R.S. BASAVARAJU
3. SRI. R.V. BABU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O. B.R. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY
4. SRI. R.V. RAVI TEJA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O. B.R. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY
5. SRI. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. R.S. BASAVARAJU
6. SMT. PALAVI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O. GIRISH
7. SMT. LAVANYA
D/O. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
8. MS. VIDYA
D/O. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
9. SRI. R.S. BASAVARAJU
S/O. LATE SANJIVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
10. SRI. R.B. DINESH
S/O. BASAVARAJU R.S.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 ARE
R/AT REDDYHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
RSA No. 687 of 2024
HC-KAR
MADHUGIRI TALUK
PIN CODE: 572 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADARSHA K.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5012/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU,
SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that all the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and all of them are members of the joint family and sale deed executed on 05.02.2015 by plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 is -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44104 RSA No. 687 of 2024 HC-KAR by fraud, misrepresentation and cheating. The plaintiffs further contend that plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 to 8 are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties, for partition and separate possession and all of them are entitled for 4/6th share.
4. The defendant No.1 took the contention in the written statement that suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant No.1 also contend that suit is filed only for the properties which are sold in his favour and the same is not maintainable for partial partition. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the documents Exs.P1 to P7 and also the evidence of D.W.1 and the documents Exs.D1 to D5, comes to the conclusion that properties are not available for partition, since the properties are already sold by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and even inspite of properties were sold by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44104 RSA No. 687 of 2024 HC-KAR defendant Nos.2 to 4, the present suit is filed along with plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that suit is filed in respect of the properties which have been sold in favour of defendant No.1 and all other family properties are not included. Hence, answered issue No.6 in 'affirmative', in coming to the conclusion that suit is bad for partial partition and also comes to the conclusion that suit is a collusive suit to defeat the right of defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5012/2022. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, in paragraph No.26, in detail discussed invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to set aside the sale deed and also taken note of the fact that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the parties to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 and also taken note of the fact that plaintiffs have sought only for the relief of cancellation of sale deed which have been executed and also taken note of the fact that present suit is filed in respect of only few items of the property selected by -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44104 RSA No. 687 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiff No.1 which has been sold by the family members and it clearly discloses that with a malafide intention, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit and dismissed the same.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that before selling the properties, suit was filed and the same was compromised immediately and the said compromise decree was challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court and this Court can decide the second appeal after disposal of the writ petition. The counsel also would contend that plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are not the parties to the sale deed and their interest has to be protected.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 have sold the property in favour of defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that, even inspite of properties were sold by them, they also joined along with plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 for cancellation of sale deed. It is also important to note that when the compromise decree was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition and even though the same is pending -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44104 RSA No. 687 of 2024 HC-KAR before this Court, the issue involved between the parties is that only the properties which have been sold in favour of defendant No.1 have been questioned in the suit and the Trial Court also while answering issue No.6 rightly comes to the conclusion that suit for partial partition is not maintainable and also taken note of the fact that suit is filed only in respect of the properties which have been sold by the other joint family members and when collusive suit is filed and the same is only with an intention to defeat the rights of defendant No.1. Though the other properties are also available for the family, the plaintiffs ought to have included those properties in the partition and the same has not been done. When such being the case when the Trial Court has given the definite finding that suit itself is not maintainable for partial partition, even if the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted that writ petition is pending and the same is with regard to compromise is concerned, no purpose would be served in keeping this second appeal pending before this Court and if this Court comes to the conclusion in the writ petition that compromise was not in the interest of all the family members and if compromise is set aside, liberty is reserved to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 to include -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44104 RSA No. 687 of 2024 HC-KAR other family properties and seek for comprehensive relief of partition, including all the properties and also make other family members as parties to the proceedings and question of admitting this second appeal and framing any substantial question of law does not arise, since this Court already comes to the conclusion that no purpose would be served in keeping the second appeal pending when the suit itself is filed only for partial partition.
With these observations, the second appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47