Karnataka High Court
Sri.Venkatappa vs K N Venkatareddy on 28 March, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1236 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VENKATAPPA
S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA @
REDDORU NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT DANDUPALYA VILLAGE,
NANDIGANAHALLI POST,
MURUGAMALLA, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UMESH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.N. VENKATAREDDY
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T S/O LATE K.N.NARAYANAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. K.N.SHIVANNA
S/O LATE K.N.NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
3. K.N.VENKATARAYAPPA
S/O LATE K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
4. K.N.JAYARAM
S/O LATE K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-2-
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
5. SMT.SUBBAMMA
W/O K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
6. SMT.KALAVATHAMMA
D/O LATE K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NAGARAJA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUNGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101
7. SMT. SUJATHAMMA
W/O DINESH BABU
D/O K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAGANJUR VILLAGE
AND POST, KASABA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101
8. SMT. UMA
W/O GURAPPA
D/O LATE K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT KODEGANDLU VILLAGE,
MITTAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101
9. SRI.RAMANNA
S/O NARAYANAPPA @ REDDORU NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
10. SRI. VENKATARAMANNA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ REDDORU NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.9 AND 10 ARE
R/AT NAGARAJA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUNGANAHALLI HOBLI
-3-
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101..
11. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O M.RAJENDRA PRASAD
D/O LATE MUNI NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
12. SREERAMU
S/O MUNI NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.11 AND 12 ARE
R/AT NO.24, RAJESWARI STREET,
CHOODIMEDU, CHENNAI-94.
13. DWARAKA
S/O K.N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NAGARAJA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUNGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA FILED IS UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2020
PASSED IN RA.NO.100/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 12.06.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.102/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition is that the
suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of
plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 12 and the suit schedule
properties are the ancestral joint family properties of defendant
Nos.1 to 5.
3. The defendants, who appeared in pursuance of the
suit summons have contended in the written statement that
one Narayanappa @ Chinna Narayanappa is the grand father of
defendant Nos.1 to 5. The said Narayanappa had three sons
and one daughter namely K.N. Narayanappa, 9th defendant-
Ramanna, 10th defendant-Venkataramanna and Smt. Konamma
and the said Narayanappa was having only wife by name
Venkatamma and he was not having any second wife as alleged
by the plaintiff by name Gangamma. The plaintiff and
defendant Nos.11 and 12 are no way concerned to the family of
defendant Nos.1 to 10. The father of defendant Nos.1 to 8
namely K.N. Narayanappa, 9th defendant-Ramanna and 10th
defendant-Venkataramanna have partitioned about 25 years
back and enjoying their respective share of properties
separately. Item No.6 exclusively belongs to late
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
K.N. Narayanappa and he got it under a gift deed dated
06.09.1948 executed by his sister Konamma. It is contended
that plaintiff's village Dandupalya is far away from the village of
defendants and the plaintiff is a stranger to the family of
defendants. The plaintiff has filed this suit to bargain for sale
transaction of suit item No.6 which is situated at Dandupalya
Village, as the defendants several times refused to sell the
property to the plaintiff. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff has
issued a legal notice dated 04.02.2007 by demanding partition,
for which the defendants have given a reply on 20.02.2007.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed the issues and the plaintiff examined himself as
P.W.1 and examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand,
the defendants examined the defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and got
marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D6. The Trial Court, after
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, answered all the issues as 'negative', in coming to the
conclusion that relationship between the parties has not been
established and in order to prove that the suit schedule
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
properties are joint family properties, no material is placed
before the Court and dismissed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.100/2013 and the First Appellate Court, on considering
the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points
whether the plaintiff proves that he along with defendant Nos.1
to 12 constitute a joint family and the suit schedule properties
are ancestral properties of the said joint family and whether the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference.
6. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this
Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in
not considering the material available on record and the
findings of both the Courts is perverse. It is also contended
that both the Courts failed to take note of evidence of P.W.3,
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
who is an aged person and he has clearly deposed before the
Court that Venkatamma and Gangamma were married to
K.N. Narayanappa and the plaintiff and defendants are children
and grand-children and his knowledge about the family of the
plaintiff and defendants is corroborated from the very
document Ex.D1-gift deed in favour of K.N. Narayanappa and
for which, this P.W.3 is witness, so also the very P.W.3 is
witness to the additional document produced by the plaintiff in
appeal, which is a sale deed dated 23.01.1986 executed by the
wife of K.N. Narayanappa. These are the materials not
considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court. Hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of
law whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were
justified in law in not believing the evidence of P.W.3, by
holding that he has no personal knowledge about the
relationship between the parties, inpsite of the fact that he was
witness to Ex.D1-gift deed and the sale deed dated 23.01.1986
executed by the wife of K.N. Narayanappa and whether both
the Courts ignored the document of Ex.D6 which on the face of
it discloses that the properties therein are ancestral properties
and erroneously comes to the conclusion that relationship has
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
not been established by the plaintiff and also not established
that the properties are the ancestral properties.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is the
assertion of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is the son
of second wife of K.N. Narayanappa i.e., Gangamma. In order
to establish the same, he has not produced any document but,
only relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who speak that
the father of the plaintiff is K.N. Narayanappa. But, P.W.3 says
that plaintiff was born and grown up in Dandupalya village only.
P.W.1 has admitted that he has no document to show that the
defendant Nos.1 to 10 are children of Reddoru Narayanappa
and residing in a joint family and also admitted that defendant
Nos.1 to 10 were residing separately since about 25 years
back. He also states that, he was born and grown up at
Nagarajahosahalli Village, but P.W.3 stated that the plaintiff
was born and grown up at Dandupalya Village.
9. The Trial Court also, in Para No.14 of the judgment
taken note of the fact that plaintiff himself has admitted that he
has no document to prove that the defendant Nos.9 and 10 and
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
their elder brother K.N. Narayanappa's mother Venkatamma
and his mother Gangamma are sisters and wives of
Narayanappa. Having taken note of the material on record, the
Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the relationship
between the parties has not been established. The Trial Court
also, taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record in respect of the contention of the plaintiff that suit
schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties,
wherein also discussed in detail with regard to the documents
available on record and answered all the issues as 'negative'.
10. The First Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in Para
No.19, discussed with regard to the contention of the defendant
No.1 that the plaintiff is a stranger and also taken note of the
evidence of P.W.1 and suggestion made to P.W.1 with regard to
the relationship between the parties and in the pleadings, it is
stated that Narayanappa was having only wife i.e.,
Smt. Venkatamma and during the course of cross-examination
of P.W.1 also, admitted that names of daughters of Konamma
is Gangamma and Chikkavenkatamma. Hence, comes to the
- 10 -
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
conclusion that the same is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is
not at all concerned with the family of defendant Nos.1 to 10.
11. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the
evidence of P.W.2, who is a resident of Dandupalya and he
states that he knows the plaintiff and further deposes that
father of the plaintiff is one Reddoru Narayanappa and he had
two wives by name Gangamma and Venkatamma. But, during
the course of cross-examination, he admitted that plaintiff
came from Nagarajahosahalli and resided at Dandupalya 30
years ago. He also admits that Narayanappa i.e., the father of
defendant Nos.1 to 10 was residing at Nagarajahosahalli and
when the plaintiff came and resided at Dandupalya 30 years
ago, P.W.2 ought to have stated as to how he came to know
about the relationship between the parties and he has not
stated the same. The witness P.W.3, who is the resident of
Dandupalya, though claims that he knows the plaintiff and
father of the plaintiff and he had two wives but, in the cross-
examination, he deposes that, his father used to tell that one
Chikka Konamma, W/o. of Chikkavenkatappa was there in
Dandupalya and he does not know when that Chikkakonamma
died. During his cross-examination, he admitted his signature
- 11 -
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
on a registered deed dated 06.09.1954 and it is marked as
Ex.D1 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.D1(a). The
document Ex.D1 reveals that Konamma, W/o.
Chikkavenkatappa, aged about 70 years gifted the suit
schedule item No.6 property in favour of K.N. Narayanappa and
in the cross-examination, he says that he does not remember
as to whether Chikkakonamma gifted the property under Ex.D1
and also says that he does not remember of having signed the
document. The Trial Court also taken note of the conduct of
P.W.1 and the document was also registered in the year 1948
itself and P.W.3 admits the signature in Ex.D1 but, he does not
speaks the truth and hence, the claim of P.W.3 having known
the relationship of the parties cannot be accepted.
12. Both the Courts have taken note of the evidence
available on record and the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court, having considered the material on record, not
accepted the case of the plaintiff since, the plaintiff has not
produced any material before the Court to establish that there
exists a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants
and the plaintiff also not produced any document to show that
he is the son of second wife of Narayanappa. Both the Courts
- 12 -
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
have given anxious consideration to both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record and not accepted the evidence of
P.Ws.2 and 3 that those witnesses are having any knowledge
about the relationship between the parties since, one claims
that the plaintiff came from Dandupalya and another claims
that he came from Nagarajahosahalli. In order to establish that
they were together in the joint family also, nothing is placed on
record and the plaintiff only claims that he is the son through
the second wife of Narayanappa. In the absence of any
material before the Court that he is the son of the second wife
of Narayanappa, I do not find any force in the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts
committed an error and the finding given by both the Courts is
based on the material on record and rightly not believed the
evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to establish the relationship between
the plaintiff and the defendants and the documents which have
been relied upon by the plaintiff also not comes to the aid of
the plaintiff to come to the conclusion that the properties are
joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 10.
Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal to admit and frame
the substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of C.P.C.
- 13 -
RSA No. 1236 of 2021
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
