Karnataka High Court
H A Ramakrishna Reddy vs Smt Rangamma on 1 October, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RFA NO. 469 OF 2006 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. H A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(A) BASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
1(B) H.R. SOMASHEKAR REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY LR
1(B)(A) SMT. ROOPA
W/O H.R. SOMASHEKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
1(B)(B) HIMABINDU
MINOR 12 YEARS
D/O SOMASHEKAR REDDY
REPRESENTED BY R1(B)(A) MOTHER
BOTH ARE R/O.
HALAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 208
2. H A LAXMANA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LR
2
2(A) H.L. MARITHIMMAIAH REDDY
S/O LATE H.S. ASWATHA REDDY
AGED 31 YEARS
2(B) H.L. ASHWATH REDDY
S/O LATE H.S. ASWATHA REDDY
AGED 26 YEARS
2(C) SMT. ARATI
W/O PRAKASH
AGE 28 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
HALAGANAHALLI TALUK, GOWRIBIDNUR
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
3. H.A. THIMMA REDDY
S/O. LATE H.S. ASWATHA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3(A) H.T. NARESH REDDY
S/O LATE H.S. THIMMA REDDY
AGED 41 YEARS
3(B) H.T. SOMASHEKAR REDDY
S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
HALAGANAHALLI TALUK, GOWRIBIDNUR
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
4. H.S. SADASHIVA REDDY
S/O. LATE H.S. ASWATHA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
3
4(A) SMT. SUSEELAMMA
HALAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI
GOWRIBIDNUR TALUKA-561 208.
4(B) SMT. NAGAMANI
R/O DHANAPURA
HINDUPUR TALUKA
PARGI MANDAL-515 201
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AP
5. SOMACHANDRA REDDY
S/O. LATE CHICKASOMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. PRABHAKAR REDDY
S/O. LATE CHICKASWARY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7. S. SOMA REDDY
S/O. LATE BONNAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
8. S. RAMA REDDY
S/O. BANAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
9. H.S. SHANKAR REDDY
S/O. LATE BANAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
10 . SHIVARAMA REDDY
S/O. LATE BANAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
11 . SRIRAMA REDDY
S/O. LATE KURLAPPA REDDY
AGED 35 YEARS
4
12 . SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O. LATE KURLAPPA REDDY
AGED 30 YEARS
OCC: ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST
R/O. HALAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 208
[VIDE COURT ORDER CAUSE TITLE AMENDED]
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR .S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RANGAMMA
W/O. LATE CHICKALAXMANA REDDY
@ CHIKKALAXMAIAH
HALAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANOOR TALUKA
SINCE DECD BY LR'S II RESPONDENT
2. SOMASHEKARA REDDY
ADOPTED S/O SMT. RANGAMMA
AGED 17 YEARS, MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND
SMT. RANGAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKALAXMANA REDDY
HALAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUKA-561 208.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY KUM. TENIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH BHANDARY .T, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS DEAD, R2 IS LR OF DECEASED R1)
5
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2005 PASSED IN
O.S. NO. 28/1994 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) &
JMFC., CHICKBALLAPUR DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION.
THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.09.2024, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
The captioned regular first appeal is by the defendants
assailing the judgment and decree rendered in
O.S.No.28/1994 wherein plaintiffs' suit is decreed thereby
declaring plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule
properties and consequently, the defendants herein are
restrained by way of perpetual injunction from interfering
with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the
suit schedule properties.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
6
3. The facts of the case are as under:
Original plaintiff No.1/ Rangamma along with plaintiff
No.2/Somashekara Reddy/adopted son filed a suit in
O.S.No.28/1994. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of one
Chikkalakshmanareddy. The said Chikkalakshmanareddy
had brothers by name Chikkasomareddy and Dodda
Lakshmanareddy. Plaintiff No.1 contended that there was a
partition among her husband and brothers about 50 years
back. Since plaintiff No.1 and Chikkalakshmanareddy had
no issues, her husband had bequeathed the suit schedule
properties as per the Will dated 28.5.1964. Plaintiff No.1
claims that she is exclusively enjoying the suit schedule
properties and she has adopted plaintiff No.2 when he was
one year child through registered adoption deed 3.12.1992.
Alleging that defendants without semblance of right are
interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession, the
present suit is filed.
7
4. Defendants 1 to 12 tendered appearance and
filed written statement and stoutly denied the alleged
partition and also disputed the alleged Will dated 28.4.1964
executed by the husband of plaintiff No.1. The defendants
also disputed the factum of adoption. The defendants on
the contrary contended that husband of plaintiff No.1 has
executed a release deed on 16.3.1923 and therefore,
contended that the present suit is barred by limitation and
sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their
respective claims led in oral and documentary evidence.
Trial Court while answering issue No.1 in the affirmative
held that plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the suit
schedule properties have fallen to the share of
Chikkalakshmanareddy in the family partition. While
answering issue No.2 in the affirmative, trial Court held that
plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the Will dated
28.5.1964. While answering additional Issue No.1 in the
8
negative, the trial Court held that defendants have failed to
prove the alleged relinquishment executed by
Chikkalakshmanareddy by executing the release deed dated
16.3.1923.
6. The learned counsel for defendants have relied
on following judgments:
(i) Kishori Lal .vs. Chaltibai [1958(9) SC 504]
(ii) Ghisalal .vs. Dhapubai and others [(2011)2 SCC
298]
(iii) Daulat Ram and others .vs. Sodha and others
[(2005) 1 SCC 40]
(iv) B. Venkatamuni .vs. D.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh
and others [AIR 2007 SC 311(1)]
(v) N.M. Ramachandraiah and another .vs. The
State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary and others
[ILR 2007 KAR 4020]
(VI) R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder .vs. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple [Appeal (Civil)
10585/1996 DD.8.10.2003]
9
7. Heard the learned counsel on record. Perused
the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.
8. The following points would arise for
consideration:
"(1) Whether trial Court was justified in holding
that plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the factum
of partition as alleged in the plaint?
(2)Whether the finding of the trial Court that
plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the Will
executed by husband of Plaintiff No.1 in favour of
plaintiff as per the Will 28.5.1964 is perverse and
erroneous?
(3) Whether the finding of the trial Court that
the alleged release dated 16.10.1923 admittedly
being an unregistered document does not convey
title is perverse and palpably erroneous?
9. Finding on Point No.1:
The defendants at para 9(a) have specifically averred
that husband of first plaintiff separated himself in 1923 and
10
thereafter executed the deed of release on 16.3.1923 and
thereby has relinquished his rights in the properties.
Therefore, defendants contend that by virtue of
relinquishment , plaintiff No.1 cannot claim rights in the suit
properties. To examine as to whether plaintiffs have
succeeded in substantiating the factum of partition, this
Court deems it fit to examine the averments made by
defendants in para 9(a) of the written statement which
reads as under:
" 9(a) Without prejudice to the foregoing to defendants
submits that Chikkalakshmaiah the husband of the plaintiff
had separated himself from the family in the year 1923. He
has also executed the deed of release on 16-3-1923
releasing his rights and relinquishing his rights into
properties, for valuable consideration. The release had only
brought about the division of the status of the family at
least on 16-3-1923 but has also deprived Chikka
Lakshmaiah of any right in to other properties (the Suit
proerties) by virtue of relinquishment. After that date
Chikka Lakshmaiah and his wife had been totally excluded,
the other properties i.e., the suit property. Even on that
count the plaintiff or her husband did not have any right in
the suit property. The suit has also barred by time."
11
10. This Court also deems it fit to cull out the
admissions elicited in cross-examination of
D.W.1/defendant No.4, which reads as under:
" ಾನು ಾಗೂ ಇತ ೆ ಪ ಾ ಗಳ ಜ ೕನು ೇ ೆ ೇ ೆ ಾ ೊಂಡು
ೇ ೆ ೇ ೆ ಾ ಾಸ ಾ ೇ ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ #ಜ. ಾ$ ಾ #ಂದ ಾವ&
ೇ ೆ ೇ ೆ ಇ ೇ ೆ ಎಂದು 'ಾ( ಸ) ಇ*ೆ+$ಂದ ೇ, ಾ ೆ.
ಎ-.ಎ..'ೋಮ0ೇಖರ ೆ 3 ತನ4 ತಮ5. ಾಲ7ಾನಹ,9 7ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ:
ನಂಬರು 135:7 ಇದರ<= 20 ಗುಂ>ೆ ಜ ೕನು ಎ-.ಎ..'ೋಮಚಂದ
ೆ 3 ಇವರ @ಾ<7ೆ ಬಂ ತುA ಎಂದ ೆ #ಜವಲ=. ಸದB 20 ಗುಂ>ೆಯನು4
ಅವರು 'ೋಮ0ೇಖರ ೆ 3 ಅವರ ೆಸB7ೆ ಕ ಯ ಾ ಾ ೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನನ7ೆ
7ೊ Aಲ.= ಆ ಕ ಯ ಪತ ೆG ಾನು ಾಗೂ ಪ Hಾಕರ ೆ 3 'ಾ( ಾ ಸI
ಾ ೇ ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ #ಜವಲ=. ಸದB 20 ಗುಂ>ೆಯ 'ಾ)Jೕನದ<=
'ೋಮ0ೇಖರ ೆ 3 ಇ ಾ ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ #ಜವಲ=. 0ಾK ೋಗ ಗುಂಡಪMನವರನು4
ಾನು ೋ ೆ ೕ ೆ. ಅವರು ಾ ಾ, ಆNAಯ ಕಂ ಾಯಗಳನು4
ಕOPN ೊಳ 9 ದ
A ರು ಎಂದ ೆ #ಜ."
11. This Court takes into consideration the release
deed submitted by the defendants, which has been marked
as Exhibit D2. The defendants rely on this document, dated
12
16.3.1923, to assert that the husband of Plaintiff No.1 had
relinquished his rights over certain properties. Specifically,
they claim that he released his interest in Survey No.
104/1, which measures 1.20 acres, and Survey No. 88/3,
which measures 0.18 guntas.
12. The defendants argue that the release covered
the entirety of the lands mentioned in the release deed. By
placing this release deed at the center of their defence,
they seek to demonstrate that the husband of Plaintiff No.1
had voluntarily given up all his rights to the specified lands,
thereby depriving the plaintiffs of any claim over these
properties. Their position, therefore, hinges on the assertion
that these lands are no longer subject to dispute because of
the husband's release of his rights nearly a century ago.
However, this assertion by the defendants unintentionally
lends support to the plaintiffs' case. The defendants' claim
that the husband of Plaintiff No.1 released the entirety of
these lands which aligns with the plaintiffs' narrative of a
13
prior family partition. This partition, as argued by the
plaintiffs, had already divided the properties among family
members, and the existence of such a release deed points
toward an internal family arrangement or settlement of
rights.
13. Thus, rather than disproving the plaintiffs' case,
the reliance on Ex.D2 strengthens the plaintiffs' argument
regarding the division of family properties. This inference
leads the Court to conclude that the plaintiffs have made a
compelling case, substantiating their claim of a partition
within the family. Based on this sequence of events and the
evidentiary weight of the release deed, the Court is of the
opinion that the plaintiffs have successfully proven the
occurrence of a family partition, contrary to the defendants'
intended purpose.
14. Turning to the legal principles governing the
case, it is a well-established tenet of law that the burden of
14
proof lies with the party making the assertion. In this case,
since the defendants have relied on the release deed and
made specific claims about the relinquishment of rights by
the husband of Plaintiff No.1, it is incumbent upon them to
substantiate these claims with credible evidence. The
Supreme Court of India has laid down clear guidelines on
this issue. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin1, the
Hon'ble Court emphasized that mere assertions in pleadings
do not suffice to prove a party's case. Instead, these
assertions must be supported by substantive evidence. If a
party fails to produce such evidence, their pleadings remain
unsubstantiated and unsupported, which can significantly
weaken their position in the case. This principle was
reiterated in Ranganayakamma & Anr v. K.S. Prakash2,
where the Court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests
squarely on the person who asserts a fact.
1
(2012) 8 SCC 148
2
(2008) 15 SCC 673
15
15. Moreover, in Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.
Joshi3, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of
aligning pleadings with corresponding evidence. It is not
enough for a party to simply make claims in their written
statements; they must also present tangible evidence to
back these claims. This reinforces the notion that unproven
assertions have no value in a Court of law unless they are
substantiated by credible and admissible evidence. In the
present case, the plaintiffs have not only relied on legal
principles but have also presented compelling evidence to
substantiate their claims. The factum of partition was not
merely alleged; it was effectively proven through both
documentary evidence and admissions from the defendants
themselves. Most notably, Plaintiff No.1 successfully elicited
key admissions from Defendant No.4 during cross-
examination. These admissions serve to further strengthen
the plaintiffs' case, particularly with regard to the existence
3
(2011) 11 SCC 786
16
of a prior partition within the family. In addition to these
admissions, Plaintiff No.1 has placed on record several vital
documents, including the Record of Rights (RTCs)
pertaining to the disputed lands. These RTCs serve as
official records that reflect the ownership status of the lands
in question. Initially, the RTCs show that the suit lands were
registered in the name of Chikkalakshmanareddy. Following
his death, the RTCs were updated to reflect the name of
Plaintiff No.1, thus establishing her rightful claim to these
properties.
16. Moreover, the plaintiff has provided assessment
receipts that further corroborate her ownership over the
properties. These receipts demonstrate that after the death
of her husband, she continued to hold the properties in her
name, and that she has been paying the necessary
assessments for the same. Such documentary evidence
adds substantial weight to her claims and clearly shows that
the lands were transferred to her name as the successor of
17
her deceased husband. The cumulative effect of the
evidence produced by the plaintiffs, coupled with the
admissions drawn from the defendants, leaves little room
for doubt regarding the plaintiffs' case. The Court finds that
Plaintiff No.1 has successfully established her claim of
partition, both through documentary proof and through the
testimony elicited during the trial. It is evident that the
plaintiffs have sufficiently substantiated the existence of a
family partition, and the defendants' reliance on the release
deed has only served to corroborate the plaintiffs' narrative,
rather than disprove it. Thus, in light of the material facts
and the legal framework, this Court concludes that the
plaintiffs have effectively proven their case, and the
partition of the family properties stands substantiated and
accordingly point no.1 is answered in the affirmative.
17. Findings on Point No.2:
To substantiate the testamentary arrangement, the
plaintiffs have examined the son of one of the attesting
18
witness as P.W.3. Similarly, P.W.4 is also son of the
attesting witness. Both these witnesses have identified
their signatures. Similarly, P.W.6 is examined who is also a
witness to the registered Will. These witnesses have
identified the signature of their respective fathers and the
same are marked at Exs.P2(a), p2(b) and p2(c).
18. The evidence let in by plaintiffs clearly dispels
the suspicious circumstances. In the case on hand, plaintiff
No.1 is the widow of the testator. It is quite natural to
expect that testator who had no issues to avoid any future
complications has made testamentary arrangement by
bequeathing the properties under the registered Will dated
28.5.1964. The material on record clearly substantiates that
plaintiffs have succeeded in proving due execution of the
Will. Though defendants have exhaustively cross-examined
the witnesses nothing material contradictions are elicited
and his witnesses have withstood the test of cross-
examination.
19
19. In interpreting a Will, the primary task before
the Court is to find out the intention of the testator.
Therefore, the Court is entitled to put itself into the
testator's arm chair and then test the disputed Will by
giving due weight to all the words incorporated in the Will.
An attempt should be made to interpret the provisions in
such a manner so that effect could be given to every
testamentary intention contained in the Will. In construing
the Will, the Court has to also look into the surrounding
circumstances, the position of the testator, her family
relationship. All these significant details are absolutely
necessary so as to minutely scrutinize the element of
suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. This is
solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the
Will. Therefore, it is trite that true intention of testator has
to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated
expressions but by reading the Will as a whole.
20
In the light of the discussions made supra, point No.2
is answered in the negative.
20. FINDING ON POINT NO.3:
The defendants have set up a release deed marked at
Ex.D2. Defendants contend that pursuant to partition in
the family, Chikkalakshmanareddy has relinquished the
properties that were allotted to him in the family partition
for valuable sale consideration. This document is
admittedly an unregistered document. Defendants for the
first time before this Court in absence of pleadings have
come up with a contention that in 1953, the value of the
immovable properties covered under Ex.D2 was less than
Rs.100/- and therefore, the document is not registered.
This contention is not supported by way of pleadings in the
written statement. Be that as it may be, the release deed
does not confer any right on defendants. The said
document does not transfer/confer any right and title to the
21
defendants. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the
negative.
21. On independent assessment of pleadings, oral
and documentary evidence, this Court would concur and
affirm the findings of the trial Court recorded on Issue
Nos.1 to 3 and additional Issue No.1. This Court holds that
the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court is in
accordance with law and therefore, does not warrant any
interference.
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The regular first appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
