Karnataka High Court
Doddagangamma vs Mahadevaiah on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
RSA No. 426 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
DODDAGANGAMMA
W/O NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O SUGGANAPALYA
GUBBI TALUK 572 216,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHADEVAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/O MELEHALLI
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101
COURT OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN
RA NO 242/2016 (OLD NO.53/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2009 PASSED IN OS NO.431/2000
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
JMFC, TUMKUR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
RSA No. 426 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that Nanjundappa, father of the plaintiff had two wives namely Siddamma and Siddalingamma. Plaintiff is the daughter of Nanjundappa and Siddamma. However, Siddalingamma had no issues. Hence, after the death of Nanjundappa, plaintiff inherited his property i.e. the suit schedule property and put in possession of the same. The defendant, who claims to be the adopted son of Siddalingamma (second wife of Nanjundappa) attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff by denying her title. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. However, defendant denied the plaint averments by filing written statements dated 25.07.2003 and 06.11.2007 respectively contending there was unregistered Partition Deed/Palupatti dated 18.03.1985 executed between the plaintiff and Siddlingamma. After demise of Nanjundappa and by virtue of said Partition Deed, Siddalingamma obtained suit schedule property and she executed a Will dated 31.08.1999 in favour of defendant, who is her adopted son. As such, he is having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.
4. The Trial Court based on rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and after considering the evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff being the only legal heir of late Nanjundappa, she has rightly inherited the suit schedule property, whereas the defendant failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will dated 31.08.1999. Accordingly, the suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR owner of suit schedule property and the defendant was permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the Trial Court has not considered Ex.D2 - Palupatti so also the registered Will executed in favour of the defendant. By virtue of the Will, the defendant succeeded to the property and accordingly allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
6. Heard Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Respondent though served, remained unrepresented.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintff is that the First Appellate has grossly erred while setting aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court based on the Will i.e., Ex.D1. According to him, Siddalingamma had no title in respect of suit -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR schedule property to execute the Will in favour of the defendant since Ex.D2 - Palupatti is not proved as it is an unregistered document and according to the defendant, he came to know about the said Palupatti after execution of the Will. As such, question of execution of Will based on Ex.D2 by Siddalingamma does not arise at all.
8. He further contended that defendant did not step into the witness box and his GPA holder adduced evidence on his behalf without placing any documents to prove that the defendant was unable to adduce evidence. Further, there is no pleading in the written statement filed initially by the defendant in respect of unregistered Palupatti. Additionally, the Will is not proved in accordance with law since there is discrepancy in the evidence of attesting and scribe of the Will - DWs.1 and 2. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the documents placed before the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR Court, the following substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal:
i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in placing reliance on an unregistered Palupatti - Ex.D2 though the same was objected by the plaintiff at the time of marking?
ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that execution of Ex.D1 has been proved based on the evidence of DWs.1 to 3?
10. As could be gathered from records, the marital status of Siddalingamma with Nanjundappa as his second wife and the fact that they had no issues are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Siddamma is the first wife of Nanjundappa and the plaintiff is the only daughter of Nanjundappa and Siddamma. However, the defendant claims to be the adopted son of Siddalingamma. According to defendant, after the demise of Nanjundappa, the plaintiff and Siddalingamma partitioned the larger extent of suit schedule property by metes and bounds vide -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR Partition Deed/Palupatti dated 10.03.1985. Thereafter, Siddalingamma executed a registered Will dated 31.08.1999 - Ex.D1 in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule property. Thereby, the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court while marshaling the facts and evidence came to the conclusion that Siddalingamma being the second wife of Nanjundappa died issue less and the unregistered Partition Deed 10.03.1985 had not acted upon till the execution of Will dated 31.08.1999. On perusal of the evidence of DW.1, he categorically admitted that the defendant came to know about the Partition Deed-Ex.D2 after execution of the Will. Further, the defendant is not the family member of Siddalingamma. The Trial Court also opined that the alleged Will relied on by the defendant is not proved in accordance with law, since there is discrepancy in the evidence of DW.2 - the scribe and attesting witness of said Will in respect of its execution. Further, the Partition Deed
- Ex.D2 being an unregistered document marked in -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR evidence subject to objection of the plaintiff, the same cannot be relied in evidence. Without proving the said document, Siddalingamma will not acquire any title in respect of suit schedule property to execute a Will in favour of the defendant. In such circumstance, the Trial Court held that the partition Deed-Ex.D2 is not proved and consequently Will dated 31.08.1999-Ex.D1 is also not proved. On the other hand, the plaintiff by placing sufficient documents proved that she being the sole legal heir of Nanjundappa and Siddamma, inherited the suit schedule property and the revenue documents stand in her name, which depicts that she is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, it is clear from her evidence that the defendant by virtue of Will-Ex.D1 had interfered with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit.
11. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by relying -9- NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR on Ex.D2-Palupatti/Partition Deed and the Will-Ex.D1. According to the First Appellate Court, since the Will is a registered document, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said document.
12. After careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, I am unable to accept the reasoning of the First Appellate Court for the simple reason that the Will cannot be relied upon to decide the title of the defendant in the suit schedule property, since the Palupatti/Partition Deed dated 10.03.1985 is not only an unregistered document, but also not acted upon till the execution of alleged Will dated 31.08.1999. It is the categorical admission of DW.1 in his evidence that he got the Palupatti after execution of the alleged Will. Admittedly, no revenue entries changed in the name of Siddalingamma based on Palupatti. Once the Palupatti is not proved in accordance with law, the execution of the Will by Siddalingamma cannot be accepted. Further, there is no mention in the Will-Ex.D1 about the flow of title by virtue of Ex.D2-Paluppatti. In
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR such circumstance, the First Appellate Court is not justified in allowing the regular appeal. On the other hand, the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and documents on record and held that the plaintiff is the sole surviving legal heir of Nanjundappa and Siddamma and as such, she rightly inherited the suit schedule property and also about the interference of the defendant in the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has also rightly observed that mere registration of the Will itself does not prove its genuineness without acceptable evidence about its execution. In that view of the matter, I answer both the substantial questions of law in the "negative" and accordingly proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.11.2018 passed in R.A.No.242/2016 (Old No.53/2009) is set aside.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44458 RSA No. 426 of 2019 HC-KAR
iii) Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.431/2000 by the Trial Court is upheld.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27