Sri Chikka Venkataramanappa vs Sri R Narayanappa
2023 Latest Caselaw 2254 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                          RSA No. 1886 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                           REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1886 OF 2022

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI CHIKKA VENKATARAMANAPPA
                         S/O LATE RAMANNA @ BHAKTHALA RAMAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                         R/AT YANDRAKAYALAPALLI VILLAGE
                         KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK
                         CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.
                                                            ...APPELLANT

                             (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N.D., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    SRI R. NARAYANAPPA
                         S/O LATE RAMANNA
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                         R/AT NO.2268/7, WARD NO.7
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T            BAGEPALLI TOWN
Location: HIGH           CHICKBALLAPURA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   2.    SRI PEDDAVENKATARAMANAPPA
                         S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
                         R/AT YANDRAKAYALAPALLI VILLAGE
                         KASABA HOBLI
                         BAGEPALLI TALUK
                         CHICKBALLAPURA
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS

                        THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
                   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2022
                   PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
                                 -2-
                                            RSA No. 1886 of 2022




CIVIL JUDGE AT GUDIBANDE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.112/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE, GUDIBANDE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 22.07.2022 passed in R.A.No.49/2019 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge at Gudibande.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties belong to the

family and there is no any family partition. Hence, he is entitled

for the share in the suit schedule properties.

4. The defendants appeared and filed the written

statement contending that the suit is filed for partition and

separate possession of half share in the suit schedule

properties by metes and bounds. Hence, the Trial Court framed

the issues with regard to whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

relief of partition and whether the suit is filed for non inclusion

RSA No. 1886 of 2022

of necessary properties and whether the plaintiff is entitled for

the relief of partition.

5. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined

himself as P.W.1 and also examined three witnesses as P.Ws.2

to 4 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P66. On the

other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and also

examined six witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 7 and got marked the

documents as Exs.D1 to D17.

6. The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record answered issue Nos.1

and 3 as affirmative and issue No.2 as negative in coming to

the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the share of

partition in the suit schedule properties and also not granted

any relief as sought by the defendants in respect of non-

inclusion of the properties. Hence, an appeal was filed before

the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on

considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record in R.A.No.49/2019, formulated the points that whether

the appellant/defendant No.1 proved that the suit is bad for

RSA No. 1886 of 2022

non inclusion of necessary properties and whether the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference.

7. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both

oral and documentary evidence placed on record while

considering point Nos.1 and 2 considered both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record as well as the

reasoning given by the Trial Court and extracted the answer

elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 in paragraph No.20 and also

discussed in paragraph No.21 that on perusal of testimony of

D.W.1 he has not possessed any documents to substantiate

that he had made expenses over the house property which is

situated at Bagepalli. The First Appellate Court also taken note

of the documents which are produced by defendant No.1 are

clearly showed that they are standing in the name of plaintiff.

Hence, not accepted the case of defendant No.1 in coming to

the conclusion that the defendant is not entitled for any relief

for the partition in respect of house property, which is situated

at Bagepalli. Apart from that, the reasoning is also given that

though it is contended that the said property is amenable for

partition but not filed any counter claim by seeking partition

over those properties which is situated at Bagepalli. But

RSA No. 1886 of 2022

considering the material available on record, though in the

written statement, it is contended that the house property is

also amenable for partition, no material has been placed before

the Court for having given the money to acquire the property

by the plaintiff and prima-facie the documents stand in the

name of the plaintiff, unless the defendants prove that the said

property was amenable for partition by placing sufficient

material. Both the Courts have considered the material

available on record and given the anxious consideration and

also given the finding. The very contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant is that both the Courts have

committed an error in not granting any relief in respect of the

house property cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any

grounds to admit the appeal and frame any substantial

question of law.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

RSA No. 1886 of 2022

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As, if any do not

survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CP