Karnataka High Court
Venkatamma vs Smt Lakkamma on 18 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
RSA No. 794 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
2. NARASHIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O LATE PILLAPPA,
W/O RANGANATHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
4. LAKSHMIKANTHA,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
by SUCHITRA
MJ
Location: HIGH 5. GIRISHKUMAR,
COURT OF S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
6. HARISHKUMAR,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT SOLURU VILLAGE,
SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
RSA No. 794 of 2023
AND:
1. SMT. LAKKAMMA,
W/O LATE GANGANARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT. SOLUR, MAGADI TALUK - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(DIED ON 14-08-2022)
2. GOWRAMMA,
W/O GOVINDAPPA,
D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
BUGADANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
3. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
WO VENKATESHAPPA,
D/O LATE.PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BUGADANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
4. THOLASAMMA,
W/O RANGASWAMAIAH,
D/O LATE. PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT HULUVENHALLI,
TAVAREKKERE HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5. SHARADAMMA,
W/O NAGARAJU,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
RSA No. 794 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH,
R/AT LAKSHMIPURA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562 123,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
6. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE. PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT KADARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAAPURA HOBLI - 562 123,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
7. RANGAMMA,
W/O GOVINDRAJU,
D/O LATE.PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
8. S.K. NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O LATE.KADARAPPPA, MAJOR,
R/AT NO.197, 397, 3RD CROSS,
6TH MAIN, K.S.N.LAYOUT,
SHANAKARANARA (INDUSTRIES WORKERS LAYOUT),
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 95.
PRESENTLY R/AT SOLURU,
SOLURU HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
9. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
RSA No. 794 of 2023
R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI),
MAGADI TQ - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DIST.
10. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI),
MAGADI TQ - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DIST.
11. VENKATACHALA,
S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI),
MAGADI TQ - 562 127,
RAMANAGARA DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2021
PASSED IN RA NO.13/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI. DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.48/2005 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
RSA No. 794 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful plaintiffs, who have questioned the
concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein
plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of partition and separate
possession is dismissed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The original plaintiff, Pillappa, filed a suit against the
widow of Ganganarasimhaiah. The original plaintiff,
Pillappa and Ganganarasimhaiah, are full brothers. The
plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking relief of
declaration that he is the absolute owner of suit 'A'
schedule properties in terms of oral partition and in the
alternate, he sought partition of schedule 'B' properties.
The original plaintiff contended that one Kadarappa is the
propositus and he had five sons, namely,
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
Ganganarasimhaiah, Puttanarasimhaiah, the original
plaintiff, Pillappa, S.K.Narasimhaiah and
Chikkanarasimhaiah. The original plaintiff, referring to
schedule 'A' properties, contended that these properties
were allotted to him in a family partition. The original
plaintiff specifically contended that the suit agricultural
land bearing Sy.No.57, measuring 4 acres 32 guntas, was
purchased in the name of his elder brother,
Ganganarasimhaiah, i.e, husband of defendant No.1 and
that it was jointly cultivated by the family members. The
original plaintiff claimed that he had constructed a
residential house in Sy.No.57. Alleging that defendants are
denying share in Sy.No.57, the present suit is filed
seeking relief of declaration that the original plaintiff is the
absolute owner of suit 'A' schedule properties based on
oral partition and consequently sought partition in 'B'
schedule properties by contending that suit schedule
properties are joint family ancestral properties.
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
4. Defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered
appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the
entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants, on the
contrary, claimed that there was oral partition on
06.06.1980 and specifically pleaded that item No.2 in
schedule 'B' properties bearing Sy.No.57 is the self-
acquired property of Ganganarasimhaiah, who is the elder
brother of the original plaintiff, Pillappa and hence sought
for dismissal of the suit.
5. The original plaintiff and defendants to
substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and
documentary evidence.
6. The Trial Court, having examined the pleadings
and oral and documentary evidence, more particularly the
admissions elicited in cross-examination of the original
plaintiff insofar as item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties is
concerned, proceeded to hold that there is severance in
the family. While answering issue No.3 partly in the
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
affirmative, the Trial Court, referring to several admissions
elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1, held that item No.2
in schedule 'B' properties bearing Sy.No.57 is the self-
acquired property of the husband of defendant No.1. The
admissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 are
culled out by the Trial Court. The original plaintiff, in his
cross-examination, has admitted that Sy.No.57 was
purchased by the husband of defendant No.1 in 1972. The
original plaintiff has further admitted that, based on the
sale deed, Ganganarasimhaiah's name was duly mutated
in the revenue records. He has further admitted that
Ganganarasimhaiah and defendant No.1 are residing
separately. He has further admitted that
Ganganarasimhaiah was into business and had
independent earnings, and from the said independent
earnings, he has purchased Sy.No.57. The plaintiff further
admitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in exclusive
possession of Sy.No.57 after the demise of
Ganganarasimhaiah. Referring to these admissions elicited
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
in cross-examination, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss
the suit and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs on the main appeal as well as on the delay
application. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts
below.
8. In the present suit, the original plaintiff admits
that there is oral partition in the family and therefore, he
has sought relief of declaration to declare him as the
absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The
original plaintiff has further contended that schedule 'B'
properties are also ancestral properties. The defendants
have admitted the entire claim of the original plaintiff
except item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties, i.e.,
agricultural land in Sy.No.57. The defendants admit oral
partition and the entire claim of the original plaintiff.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2, on the contrary, claimed that item
No.2 in schedule 'B' properties, i.e., agricultural land
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
bearing Sy.No.57, is the self-acquired property of
Ganganarasimhaiah, who is the husband of defendant
No.1. Both the Courts referring to the cross-examination
of plaintiff, have concurrently held that plaintiff has failed
to substantiate that agricultural land bearing Sy.No.57 is
joint family ancestral property. Admissions culled out in
cross-examination of P.W.1 are culled out by the Trial
Court at paragraph No.7. The severance in the family in
1980 is also culled out while cross-examining P.W.2. The
Trial Court, referring to Exs.D.9 and 10 has come to the
conclusion that defendants have also succeeded in
substantiating that there is already partition. Reliance is
placed on Exs.D.9 and 10.
9. If these significant details are looked into, the
plaintiffs claim over agricultural land bearing Sy.No.57 is
found to be totally misconceived. It is also evident from
the record that a false claim is made by the plaintiffs
insofar as item No.2 of schedule 'B' properties is
concerned. However, during trial, the original plaintiff
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46116
admitted in unequivocal terms that item No.2 in schedule
'B' properties is the self-acquired property of the husband
of defendant No.1. He has also admitted exclusive
possession of defendant No.1 over item No.2 of 'B'
schedule properties. He has also admitted in unequivocal
terms that his brother Ganganarasimhaiah purchased item
No.2 of schedule 'B' properties out of his independent
earnings. If these significant details are looked into, then I
am of the view that findings recorded by the Courts below
insofar as item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties is
concerned, do not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, no
substantial question of law would arise for consideration.
The regular second appeal stand dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
