Karnataka High Court
M/S Eagleburg India Private Limited vs Smt Dhanalakshmi on 13 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
RSA No. 717 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.717 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. EAGLEBURG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.2348, KUMARA KRUPA, 9TH MAIN,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU- 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. RANGANATH S. KAUSHIK,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS KAUSHIK,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PINEWOOD PARK,
NO.3A, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU-570 004.
2. SRI. M.L. NAVEEN KUMAR,
Digitally signed S/O LATE M.P.LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.420/1, 11TH MAIN,
COURT OF CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
KARNATAKA
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570 004.
3. SRI. HANUMANARASAIAH,
S/O CHIKKACHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT BILLEKEMPANAHALLI,
B.N. HALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 109.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.N.NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. PARINA LALLA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
RSA No. 717 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI,
W/O SRI. GOVINDRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.92, 5TH CROSS,
KURABURAHALLI,
MYSURU - 570 011.
2. SMT. UMASHANKARI,
W/O SRI. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BADAGALAHUNDI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010.
3. SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
S/O LATE THAMBADIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
4. SRI. R. KRISHNA,
S/O SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5. SRI. VASUDEVA,
S/O SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
6. SRI. R. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE
ALL RESIDING AT DOOR NO.274,
VRAGYA MARGA, SIDDHARTA LAYOUT,
MYSURU - 570 010.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
RSA No. 717 of 2025
HC-KAR
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.723/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL II
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This 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 the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.723/2009 seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession of their 2/6th share against defendant Nos.1 to 4 by metes and bounds by holding that the sale deeds dated 16.06.2006 and 25.11.2006 are not binding on them. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and they are in joint possession over the same. The suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant No.1 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR in the partition that took place between defendant No.1 and his brother. It is also contended by the plaintiffs that the khatha of the same was standing in the name of defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of defendant No.1. It is contended that the plaintiffs' grandfather possessed ancestral landed property bearing Sy.No.33/6 situated at Bonthagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatana Taluk, Mandya District. Subsequent to the demise of their grandfather Thamadigowda, the said property was jointly inherited by second wife Smt. Thamadamma and her sons Thamadigowda and Chikka alias Chikkaiah and they sold the said property on 08.11.1952 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.33/6 in favour of Marigowda S/o Maligowda. It is also the specific case that out of the sale consideration so received from the sale of the ancestral property, the aforesaid Thambadigowda @ Ramaiah and Chikkaiah jointly purchased land bearing Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas situated at Varakodu Grama, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk from Thambadaiah S/o Kuntijavaregowda and his wife Kempamma and his children on 25.05.1955 through a registered sale deed. Thus, it is contended that the suit schedule property is -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR the ancestral property of themselves in which they can claim a right by birth.
4. It is also contended that subsequently, at an oral partition, Thambadigowda and Chikkaiah received an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas each and the said Thambadigowda purportedly sold his share in favour of one Sri Naveen Kumar on 11.07.2005 illegally and behind the back of the plaintiffs. The said Naveen Kumar sold the suit schedule property in favour of Sri Hanumanarasaiah S/o Chikkachannappa, who is defendant No.5. In turn, defendant No.5 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6. Since all these alienations are subsequent to 20.12.2004, none of these alienations bind the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the plaintiffs pleaded that they are married and are residing at their matrimonial house. There was no partition between them and defendant Nos.1 to 4 with respect to the suit schedule property. When they visited their parental house, they demanded for partition on 15.11.2009 with defendant No.1. At the first instance, defendant No.1 agreed to effect partition, but later on turned down their demand to effect partition and hence without any other alternative, they -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession holding that the sale deeds made by them are not binding on them.
5. The defendant Nos.5 and 6 appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement contending that the said property belongs to defendant No.1 and the same is a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and though his sons have joined along with defendant No.1 in selling the property, only for nominal sake entered into the said deed and hence the plaintiffs are not having any right over the suit schedule property.
6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants, whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deeds dated 16.06.2006 and 25.11.2006 are not binding on them, whether they are entitled for 2/6th share in the suit schedule property and whether the Court fee paid is sufficient and proper?
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 20. On the other hand, defendant No.6 has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 13. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and that they were in joint possession of the property and the sale deeds executed are not binding on the plaintiffs. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative with regard to the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient or proper and granted the relief of partition granting share of 2/6th share in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal in R.A.No.82/2021. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points whether the Trial Court has erred in holding the suit property as the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, whether the Trial Court has committed an error -8- NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR in appreciating oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and whether it requires any interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court while dealing with the matter, taken note of the grounds urged in the appeal and also considered the pleadings of the parties and in paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 28 taken note of the document of sale deeds at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Having taken note of the same, in paragraph No.29 comes to the conclusion that out of the sale consideration received by the sale of ancestral property under the registered sale deed dated 08.11.1952, the property was jointly purchased by defendant No.1 and his brother and comes to the conclusion that there was a partition among defendant No.1 and his brother and the same cannot be termed as a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The main contention of the appellants before this Court, who are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property, is that both the Courts have committed an error in holding that the suit schedule property is ancestral in nature despite the absence of any documentary evidence to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR substantiate such a claim made by the plaintiffs i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel would contend that there was a partition effected between defendant No.1 and his brother and also contend that the plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the property and there was a partition. Both the Courts without considering the issue of Court fee payable as required under the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, committed an error and a specific contention was taken that they were not in possession of the property and they cannot maintain a suit for the relief of partition and seek the relief as not binding on them and the very approach of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is erroneous and the same requires interference by admitting the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, particularly in the Trial Court pleadings, the plaintiffs have categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property. They have pleaded that originally the property bearing Sy.No.33/6 belongs to their ancestor i.e., grandfather and the same was jointly inherited by the second
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR wife Smt. Thamadamma and her sons Thamadigowda and Chikka alias Chikkaiah and they sold the property on 08.11.1952. Subsequent to the selling of the said property, the property was purchased on 25.05.1955 through a registered sale deed. Having pleaded the same, in order to substantiate the same, the plaintiffs have placed on record the document of Ex.P.2 RTC extract for the year 2008-09, registered sale deed as per Ex.P.3 and the document of Ex.P.4 certified copy of sale deed dated 08.11.1952, which establishes the fact that the property was sold and the said property belongs to the family of defendant No.1 i.e., ancestors and all other documents are placed before the Court. Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and others are also placed on record as Ex.D.8. The defendants have also relied upon the sale deed dated 25.05.1955 and certified copy of the RTC extract for the year 1995-96 by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.8. Having considered all these documents, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the property is an ancestral property and the same is acquired out of the sale consideration in terms of Exs.P.3 and 4, which evidences the fact that it is an ancestral property.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. The First Appellate Court re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly taken note of the pleadings of the parties. The contention of the defendants that it is a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and also the contention of the plaintiffs that it was an ancestral property of themselves and the defendants, was taken note of in detail by framing the point for consideration. In paragraph No.26 taken note of Ex.P.3 and in paragraph No.27 taken note of the recitals of Ex.P.3 and also taken note of the recitals of Ex.P.4 i.e., sale deed dated 08.11.1952 in paragraph No.28. The sale made by the parties are also taken note of and in paragraph No.29 comes to the conclusion that out of the sale consideration received by the sale of ancestral property under the registered sale deed dated 08.11.1952, jointly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas. Considering Exs.P.3 and 4 and other documents comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and the same is purchased out of the sale consideration of sale of the property belonging to the ancestors.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Though the learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also suggested to frame substantial question of law that the same has not been considered in a proper perspective, unless this Court finds any perversity in the finding of the factual aspects of the case, the question of entertaining the second appeal does not arise. It has to be noted that sale is made subsequent to amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. When such being the case and when the daughters are excluded while selling the property by the father and other brothers, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the property is not an ancestral property cannot be accepted. The daughters also become the coparceners in respect of the ancestral properties and Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act attracts in coming to the conclusion with regard to the devolving of the property in respect of the other coparceners. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted and both the Courts taken note of question of fact and question of law and hence there is no any substantial
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421 RSA No. 717 of 2025 HC-KAR question of law to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law and hence no grounds.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48