Karnataka High Court
Smt.Nagamma vs Sri.R.Nagaraju on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44834
RSA No. 1725 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1725 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT.NAGAMMA
W/O NARAYANA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
DIED ON 16.07.2020
1. SMT NIRMALA
D/O NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. SMT SOWBHAGYA
D/ON ARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Digitally signed 3. SMT DHANALAKSHMI
by DEVIKA M
D/O NARAYANA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
4. SMT ROOPA
D/O NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.89/1B, STSH,
4TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGARA,
KESARE, MYSORE - 570007.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44834
RSA No. 1725 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI.R.NAGARAJU
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, O.D.BLOCK,
MAIN ROAD,
RAJENDRA NAGARA,
MYSURU-570007.
2. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/AT NO.261, 1ST FLOOR,
MIG GROUP-1, KHB COLONY,
HOOTAGALLI,
MYSORE - 570 018.
SMT AMMAYAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY DEAD BY HER LRS,
JAGADEESH,
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
DEAD BY LRS
3. NAGARATHNA,
W/O LATE JAGADEESH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. VINAY
S/O LATE JAGADEESH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
5. POORNIMA
D/O LATE JAGADEESH,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44834
RSA No. 1725 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R2 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO.94/2B, 4TH CROSS
RAJENDRA NAGARA
MYSURU CITY - 570 007.
6. PUTTASWAMY
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
7. SRI P LAXMANA
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
8. P JAYALAXMI
D/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
9. P NATARAJA
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R4 TO R9 ARE R/AT NO.94/2B,
4TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGARA,
MYSURU CITY - 570 007.
10. SMT PREMA
W/O LATE MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1785, 2ND CROSS,
HULLINA BEEDI, SEETHARAMA RAO ROAD,
K.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(Sri. Srinivas V, Advocate for proposed R1(B TO D); R9
SERVED
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44834
RSA No. 1725 of 2022
HC-KAR
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2025, NOTICE TO R1(B TO D) R6,
R7, R8 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025, R2 (A TO D), R3, R5 AND
R10(A AND B) CALLED OUT ABSENT
R1 (B TO D) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1(A)
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.10.2025,
NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2022
PASSED IN RA.No.54/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2019 PASSED IN OS No.1295/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This matter is listed for admission.
3. The second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of trial Court and Appellate Court. The records reveal that earlier also matter was remanded to the trial Court to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44834 RSA No. 1725 of 2022 HC-KAR provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead his sister and their legal heirs as defendants and to provide opportunity to implead defendants to adduce evidence and to pass judgment inkeeping the observations made by this Court. In the earlier appeal also, in RA No.94 of 2017 with regard to the Will is concerned, which have been proposed by the plaintiffs, held that the same is not proved since there is no any compliance of mandatory requirements of Indian Evidence Act and answered the issue No.2 as negative. It was also taken note of while disposing of the matter that the appellate court while disposing the Appeal R.A.No.94 of 2017 held that property is absolute property of Ningamma and she died intestate and directed the court to dispose of the case by keeping in mind about the observations made by the court and taking note of the said fact into consideration considered the issue No.5 and granted 1/5th share since the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ningamma. The same is challenged before the appellate court in R.A.No.54 of 2020. The appellate court also having considered the grounds, which have been urged, there was a delay in filing the appeal and delay was condoned and also an application was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44834 RSA No. 1725 of 2022 HC-KAR same was answered as negative and also while answering point No.3, whether the trial Court committed an error in granting the relief also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that trial Court has not committed any error in granting the relief of 1/5th share in respect of the suit shutter property. The same is challenged before this Court in this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the courts have committed an error in granting the relief of partition in granting 1/5th share having held that the Will dated 16.09.1986 was not proved. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the defence was raised that the property was self-acquisition of the property by Narayana, the husband of the defendant No.1, ought not to have granted such relief. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that when an application is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, ought not to have dismissed wnd the very approach of the appellate court is also erroneous in rejecting the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and hence, this court has to frame substantive question of law. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44834 RSA No. 1725 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would immediately contend that this is a second round of litigation and earlier also an appeal was filed R.A.No.94 of 2017 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and appeal was also remanded only with a direction to bring the legal representatives on record and dispose of the same and wherein an observation is made in R.A.No.94 of 2017 that the property belongs to Ningamma. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the order passed in R.A.No.94 of 2017 was also challenged in MSA No.136 of 2017 regarding remanding of the matter and the MSA was allowed and only the application filed Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading was allowed. An observation is also made that it is an undisputed fact that sisters are also entitled for consideration of their claim in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the brother and do not find any error apparent or illegality committed by the first appellate court in allowing the appeal in part and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court to consider the same and dismissed the MSA.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44834 RSA No. 1725 of 2022 HC-KAR
6. Having heard the appellate counsel and also the counsel appearing to the respondent and also particularly considering the material on record, the suit is filed for the relief of partition and no doubt the plaintiff has claimed half share based on the Will and courts have given the finding that Will was not proved and only considered Issue No.4, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the property. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial court and also the appellate court and appellate court also in the first round of appeal, comes to the conclusion that property belongs to Ningamma and the said finding was not challenged and when the MSA was filed and the same was also dismissed and when such being the case, now counsel appearing for the appellant cannot contend that the property belongs to the husband of the appellant and made the payment. When already there was a finding that property exclusively belongs to the Ningamma and legal heirs are entitled for a share over the property and trial Court having considered the same, 1/5th share was granted. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court and Appellate Court considering the view of the finding already given by the Appellate Court in RA No.94 of 2017 that property -9- NC: 2025:KHC:44834 RSA No. 1725 of 2022 HC-KAR belongs to Ningamma, question of entertaining the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC does not arise and the fact that property was allotted in the year 1978 in favour of Ningamma and Absolute sale deed was executed in 2017, but the fact is that already when the court has given the finding that property belongs to Ningamma and the same cannot be re-agitated in this second appeal in view of finding already given in earlier RA No.94 of 2017 wherein with a specific direction remand was made to implead the LRs and decide the same as per the observations made by the court in RA No. 94 of 2017. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44