Karnataka High Court
Shanthamma vs Kolluramma on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
RSA No. 1587 of 2024
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.1587 OF 2024 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O MALLAPPA
RESIDENT OF RATTEHALLI
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 416.
ALSO A RESIDENT OF
CHANNAMUMBAPUR VILLAGE
ABBALAGERE POST
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 225.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI. VAGEESHA N., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. KOLLURAMMA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI. KUNTE HANUMANTHAPPA
2. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. KUNTE HANUMANTHAPPA
3. NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
RSA No. 1587 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. KAMALA
W/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
THE RESIDENTS OF CHANNAMUMBAPUR VILLAGE
ABBALAGERE POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 225.
5. VINUTHA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O MUKUNDA BADAL
RESIDENT OF SRI VITAL TEMPLE ROAD
SHARAVATHI NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
6. MANU P. KUMAR
W/O PREETHAM KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O SINCHANA
MAIN PARALLEL ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.115/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, C/C IIND ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA., DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1031/2012 ON THE FILE
OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
RSA No. 1587 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of declaration and partition is that sale deed dated 05.06.2000 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. Hence, she is entitled for 1/5th share and contend that mother had sold the property and the same came to her knowledge recently. Hence, she filed the suit.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule properties and the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has not proved that the sale deed dated 05.06.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff and all these aspects were taken note of by the Trial -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44687 RSA No. 1587 of 2024 HC-KAR Court particularly, admission elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 which was culled out in paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Trial Court, wherein she categorically admitted that, earlier also father had applied for permission to sell the property and in the meanwhile, father passed away and thereafter, mother sold the property which is also for family necessity. She also categorically admitted that she came to know about the sale 10 years ago and she could not file the suit immediately. It is further admitted that in the said sale deed, the brother i.e. defendant No.2 and her sisters' i.e., defendant Nos.3 and 4 have also signed. Having taken note of the admissions of P.W.1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 had the knowledge about the sale transaction and subsequently, filed the suit and though the sale was made in 2002, suit was filed in 2012 and all these factors have been taken note of and dismissed the suit in respect of item No.1 of schedule 'A' property and granted the relief in respect of other property i.e., item No.2 in schedule 'A' property.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.115/2019. The -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44687 RSA No. 1587 of 2024 HC-KAR First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered the points as 'negative' and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, wherein also the First Appellate Court exercised its statutory powers while considering the first appeal as a original suit and re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, including Exs.P1 and P2 i.e., copies of the registered sale deeds dated 05.06.2000 and also taken note of the recitals in the document in Ex.P1. Apart from that, admissions of P.W.1 was also taken note of by the First Appellate Court and applied its judicious mind and dismissed the appeal.
6. Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this second appeal would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and this Court has to frame the substantial questions of law whether the Courts below were right in applying Section 6 of the Hindu -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44687 RSA No. 1587 of 2024 HC-KAR Sections Act instead of Section 8 of the Act when the Courts below have given a finding that the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of the father of the appellant and whether the Courts below were right in applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act instead of applying Article 110 of the Act, insofar as the suit of partition and for separate possession is concerned. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiff, she has categorically stated that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and also admitted that sale was made in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 by defendant No.1 in respect of suit item No.1 of the property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff before the Court that sale deed dated 05.06.2000 executed in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 is not binding on her share. Having considered this ground as well as the defence taken by the defendants and also the answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 which has been culled out in paragraph No.18, categorical admissions are given that her -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44687 RSA No. 1587 of 2024 HC-KAR father was intending to sell the property and sought permission and in the meanwhile, he passed away and then, her mother sold the property and the mother was not having any income to lead the family and property was sold. Hence, it is very clear that property was sold for the family necessity. Apart from that, she categorically admits that her brother as well as her two sisters are also signatories to the said sale deed and categorically admitted that she was aware of the sale 10 years ago and suit was filed in 2012 and sale was made in 2000 and there was an inordinate delay.
8. Having taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 and also the recitals in the document of Exs.P1 and P2, the First Appellate Court discussed while re-appreciating the material available on record taken note of recitals of the document i.e. documentary evidence as well as admission on the part of P.W.1 during the course of her cross-examination. When there is an admission on the part of plaintiff that her mother had sold the property for family necessity and the very admission takes away the case of the plaintiff for granting the relief in respect of item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property and -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44687 RSA No. 1587 of 2024 HC-KAR when the property was sold by the mother for the family necessity and the same was within the knowledge of P.W.1 and the suit was filed belatedly in 2012, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court rightly rejected the claim in respect of item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law as contented by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and no grounds are made out to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law by invoking Section 100 of C.P.C.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53