Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh D G vs Sri T G Govindappa on 7 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.83 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH D.G.,
S/O LATE T.GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESDENT OF NO.4076/10
10TH MAIN M.C.C. 'B' BLOCK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. T.G. GOVINDAPPA
Digitally signed S/O LATE T. GANGADHARAPPA,
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. T.G. THIPPESH
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE T.GANGADHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT N.M.C., LEFT SIDE
HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK.
3. SRI. T.G. MADAN KUMAR
S/O LATE T. GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENT OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
SANNAKURUBARA BEEDHI
NEAR NAGANAVADI
OLD TOWN
BHADRAVATHI-TALUK.
4. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
W/O ASHOKA RAO
D/O T. GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O NO.624/104
4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS
ANJANEYA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE CITY.
5. SRI. PUNDALIKA
S/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. SRI.GURURAJ
S/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
7. PADMAVATHI
D/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT NEAR LOVELY TAILOR
LIKKERI ROAD, SAGAR
SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR.
8. SRI. VENKATESH D.,
S/O T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O SRI BHAVANI NILAYA
SIDDARUDA NAGAR
NEAR SHANKAR MUTT
2ND CROSS
BHADRAVATHI TALUK.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. SMT. T. SUDHA
W/O GOPAL T.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
10. SRI. NAGESH
S/O GOPAL T.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
11. SRI. GIRISH
S/O GOPAL T.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
12. SMT. AMBIKA
D/O GOPAL T.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
13. SMT. BHAVANI
D/O GOPALA T.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.334,
1ST MAIN, CHS PRAGATHI SCHOOL OPP.
4TH STAGE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560064.
14. SRI. T. GOVINDA RAO
S/O T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O RAGHAVENDRA TAILOR
BHANDIPALYA (GARVIPALYA)
HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU-560068.
15. SRI. VITTLA
S/O T.BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O GANGAPARAMESHWARI BEEDI
THOKADAM TEMPLE ROAD
SAGAR.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
16. SMT. SHARADA BAI
W/O VINAYAKA RAO V. TAKRE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O P.N.53/A, 48/B2
SHHUNAGAR
BELAGAM CITY.
17. SMT. CHANDRAMATHI
D/O T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
C/O PREMAKUMAR
NAVAGRAMA
TALAGOPPA POST
TALAGOPPA
SAGAR TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10010/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA,
SITTING AT SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.144/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 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 and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that defendant No.1 is his mother and one late Gangadharappa @ T. Gangadhara Rao was his father and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are his brothers and defendant No.5 is his sister. Defendant Nos.6 and defendant No.11 is his sister-in-law and defendant Nos.7 and 9 are the children of defendant No.6 and late Ranganath. Defendant Nos.12 to 15 are the children of defendant No.11 and late Gopala T. The defendant Nos.10, 16, 17 are his cousin brothers and defendant Nos.18 and 19 are his cousin sisters. The plaintiff and defendants are related through blood and they belong to Hindu Undivided Joint Family. It is contented that suit schedule property stands in the name of father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19 and father-in-law of defendant Nos.6 and 11 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR and grandfather of defendant Nos.7 to 9, 12 to 15. It is contented that suit schedule property is an ancestral property which belongs to both plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff's grandfather Govinddappa, S/o. Shatojappa and 4 children namely, Basappa, father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19, Tulajappa @ Chinnappa, Shatojappa and Gangadharappa, father of plaintiff. As of now, the suit schedule property is standing in the name of Basappa, father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19. It is further submitted that the second son Tulajappa @ Chinnappa got his share during the year 1950 and 3rd son Shatojappa relinquished his share in the joint family property through the relinquishment deed dated 22.06.1942. Since these second and third sons have got their share and relinquished the right over the suit property, they and their legal representatives are not arrayed as party to the suit.
4. It is contended that grandfather of plaintiff had purchased the property on 05.04.1942 from its previous vendor Rangadol Shatoji Rao, S/o. Shatojappa for valuable consideration of Rs.200/- in the name of his elder son T. Basappa and thereafter, sale deed got registered before the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR Sub-registrar, Sagar. He purchased a vacant site measuring about 22.5 feet width x Government drainage to Kambli Mutt Hittalu. After that, Khatha was transferred from Valagada Pakirappa to T.Basappa. From then, till date, the khatha of the property stood in the name of T. Basappa. It is further contended that after purchasing the suit schedule property, grandfather of the plaintiff got constructed 3 ankana, 2 portion Mangalore tiled house in the vacant site. To meet the family crisis, they pledged the suit property to one Gojanur Channappa Shetty and brothers for consideration amount of Rs.1,300/- by executing simple mortgage deed in favour of him along with other brothers and the said document was duly registered before the Sub-registrar, Sagar under S.R.No.136/1944-45 dated 22.08.1944 which was registered on 30.08.1944. Since, the rate of interest was very much higher than other society, the grandfather of the plaintiff and his father and uncle mortgaged the suit schedule property to Ganapathy Urban Co-operative Society, Sagar Branch and obtained a loan of Rs.2,500/-. Thereafter, executed a mortgage deed in favour of Ganapathy Urban Co-operative Society during the year 1944 and subsequently got cancelled the earlier -8- NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR mortgage deed dated 22.08.1944. It is also contented that in the year 1950 there was no oral partition between the family members. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition in the ancestral property and prayed 1/6th share.
5. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared and filed their written statement claiming that they are also entitled for 1/6th share. Defendant No.10 contend that father of plaintiff has already relinquished his share as per registered partition dated 28.02.1954.
6. The Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 as 'negative' and issue No.5 as 'affirmative', in coming to the conclusion that already there was a partition in the year 1954 itself and also taken note of admission on the part of witness that no existence of joint family between the plaintiff and defendants considering the admission of P.W.1 and also taken note of evidence of D.W.1 and dismissed the suit. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.10010/2022. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point whether the findings given by the Trial Court on all the issues are perverse, capricious, arbitrary and based without proper appreciation of evidence. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record not accepted the contention of the plaintiff and particularly in paragraph No.20 discussed regarding the relationship between the parties, as there is an admission that there is no such joint family in existence and also taken note of marking of document Ex.D1 i.e., partition deed of the year 1954 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, present second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that though document Ex.D1 is marked, the same is only a secondary evidence and the same ought not to have been relied upon by the Trial Court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR and the First Appellate Court. Hence, both the Courts have committed an error in relying upon the document Ex.D1. The counsel also would contend that both the Courts erred in ignoring the document Ex.P10 which is the proof of only oral partition which has not been acted upon and inspite of it, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and the appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the reasons assigned in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the Trial Court taken note of the document of Ex.D1, the registered partition deed executed in the year 1954 itself between the father of the plaintiff and other family members which is also a registered document. The counsel would contend that the said document is only a secondary document which was placed before the Trial Court and not the original document. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that the said document was registered document and at the time of marking the document, not disputed the same. Apart from that, even in paragraph No.22,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR discussed the evidence of P.W.1, wherein also categorically admits that in between the plaintiff and defendants, there is no existence of joint family and though a suggestion was made to P.W.1 that there was a partition dated 01.03.1954 and says that he is not aware of the same, but not denies the same. Apart from that taken note of the fact that other legal heirs were also not arrayed as defendants in the suit i.e. the legal heirs of T. Basappa, since T. Basappa was also having 3 daughters and in detail the Trial Court considered the material on record. When the documents are placed before the Court and the said document is also a registered document, there is no status of joint family existing among them is also considered in paragraph No.23 and in paragraph No.24 in detail discussed the same.
10. Even, the First Appellate Court also, while considering the grounds urged by the appellant/plaintiff, particularly in paragraph No.20, taken note that P.W.1 admitted regarding the fact that no existence of joint family between him and defendants. Apart from that, document of Ex.D1 is also discussed in detail. D.W.1 was also cross-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR examined by the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff, wherein in his cross-examination, it is elicited that his grandfather had purchased suit schedule property in his father's name and no dispute with regard to the said fact and earlier also, there was a partition in the year 1950, but the material clearly discloses that in the year 1954, a partition has taken place between the plaintiff's father and also said T.Basappa. When such material is available before the Court, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the said document is only a secondary evidence and not produced the primary evidence and original document cannot be accepted. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that when the document was marked, the same was not objected and it is also settled law that, if the document is marked without any objection at the time of marking, later, the party cannot take that stand. Having considered the material and once when there was a partition in the year 1954 itself and though learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that there was only a oral partition in the year 1950 and the same is not for metes and bounds and when the demand was made with the children of T.Basappa, they refused to make the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224 RSA No. 83 of 2024 HC-KAR partition and the said contention cannot be accepted having considered the document of Ex.D1 which came into existence in the year 1954 itself. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
10. 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.: 32