[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri S N Manjunatha vs Doddavenkatarayappa on 1 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
RSA No. 782 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2021 (PA/DE/IN)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S.N. MANJUNATHA
S/O V. NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O SABBENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
2. S.N. VENUGOPAL
S/O V. NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O SABBENAHALLIVILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
Digitally signed CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101
by DEVIKA M
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SMT. S.N. VIMALA
D/O V NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O SABBENAHALLIVILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
RSA No. 782 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS 2, 3 & 6
2. V. NARASAPPA
S/O LATE DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR.
3. SMT. CHANNAKRISHNAMMA
D/O DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O BISAYYAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDIKAL HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR.
4. B.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. S. MNARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE
R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR.
6. SMT. VEKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O DODDA VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
RSA No. 782 of 2021
HC-KAR
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR.
7. SRI. M. VENKATESH RAJU
S/O N. MANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O 1ST DIVISION
SUNNAKALY STREET
BEHIND JOSEPH CONVENT
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101.
8. SRI. C.S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE CHANNIGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101
CHICKBALLAPUR.
9. SMT. GOPAMMA
W/O SUBBARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O KOGILU VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560064.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.58/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2017
PASSED IN O.S.NO.235/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
RSA No. 782 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the
plaintiff while seeking the relief of declaration, partition
and separate possession, it is specifically contended that
suit schedule properties are joint family properties and
there was no any partition. Both plaintiffs and defendants
constitute undivided joint family and they are in joint
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Further contend that daughter of defendant No.1
Venkatalakshmamma was given money by the defendant
No.1 on behalf of the joint family to purchase land bearing
Sy.No.23/2 and hence, he was not impleaded in the suit
and defendant took the specific contention that there is no
joint family status and already partition took place on
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
20.07.1980 through partition deed and accordingly the
sharers are in possession and enjoyment of the property.
The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contend that they have
acquired the properties as their self acquired properties
and therefore, neither plaintiff nor anybody have any
independent right in respect of these properties. The
defendant No.5 also contend that he had purchased the
Item No.9 of the suit schedule property from defendant
No.1 under registered sale deed dated 20.05.2002 for the
valuable consideration and he is in possession of the suit
schedule property and additional issue also framed in view
of the defence taken by defendant No.9 that Item No.9 of
the suit schedule property was the exclusive self acquired
property of defendant and the same was purchased under
the sale deed and also contend that the same was sold for
the family necessity and additional issues once again
framed that whether defendant No.7 proves that plaintiffs
are not entitled to any share and also contend that she is
a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property for value
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, answered the Issue Nos.1 and 2 as
affirmative that no joint family status in existence and
already there was earlier partition and parties have also
acted upon in terms of the earlier partition and properties
were also sold and defendant Nos.5, 7 and 9 have also
purchased the property and hence, Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that there was a partition and the same is
admitted by P.W.1 in the cross-examination and father got
some of the properties and when such admission is given,
question of allotting any share over the suit schedule
property doesn't arise. Moreover, the said document was
came into existence in the year 1975 and the suit has
been filed in the year 2007. If at all they had any right,
they should have challenged the same within 12 years and
the same is observed in paragraph No.25 in detail and also
in paragraph No.26 taken note of the admission on the
part of P.W.1 that partition between the defendant Nos.1
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
and 2 also taken place subsequent to the earlier partition
between the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1
and 2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 acted upon in terms of
subsequent to the earlier partition also and the same has
been discussed in paragraph No.26, 27 and 28. The
defendant No.6 examined as D.W.3 who is none other
than the daughter of defendant No.1 and sister of
defendant No.2, and she has stated that her father
executed a Will with respect to the properties that was
fallen to his share as per partition deed of the year 1988
entered in between the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the
same also taken note of by the Trial Court and dismissed
the suit in coming to the conclusion that there is no any
existence of joint family.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
particularly considering the grounds which have been
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether
the defendant No.1 proves that there is no joint family
status as alleged by the plaintiffs and also whether any
joint family is in existence as contended by the plaintiff
and Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court. In paragraph No.25 taken
note of with regard to the earlier gift deed is concerned
and the same is not accepted and also taken note of the
case of the plaintiffs and also the defence of the defendant
that there was a partition on 20.07.1980 between the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and as per the said partition, they
are in separate possession and enjoyment of the
properties fell to their share and also subsequently they
acted upon and material also discloses that if at all
plaintiffs are entitled for any partition they can seek the
partition from their father from the properties which fell to
the share of their father and they are not entitled for any
partition from defendant No.1, though the defendant No.1
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
is their grandfather as their father has already partitioned
from his father who is defendant No.1. The Appellate Court
in detail discussed the same and confirmed the said
judgment.
4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed by the appellant and
contend that original propositus late Munishamappa has
executed registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.1
bequeathing his half share in the Item Nos.3 to 10 and 12
of the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendant No.2
and the plaintiffs are entitled for said share in the suit
schedule property. It is contended that Court below
without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances,
committed an error in not accepting the gift deed. The
counsel would vehemently contend that when the
defendant No.1 himself has admitted that suit schedule
property are the ancestral properties and except Item
Nos.1 and 2, the defendant No.1 has no other source of
income to acquire the properties and even such material
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
available on record, committed an error in coming to the
conclusion that parties have acted upon and hence, it
requires interference.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and also the learned counsel for the
respondents and also considering the pleadings of the
plaintiff that he contend that there was no any partition.
But, P.W.1 categorically admitted that there was a
partition between the father of the plaintiff and also the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have already divided the
properties subsequent to the partition and also disposed of
the properties of their share. When there is a clear
admission that already there was a partition long ago and
the same was not questioned and rightly observed by the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that if they have
any right they can plead and claim the partition from the
property which was allotted to the share of their plaintiff's
father. When such finding is given and when there is no
any existence of joint family and parties have also long
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
back partitioned the property and they have acted upon
and in terms of the said partition also sold some of the
properties and there are subsequent purchasers who
claims that they are the bonafide purchasers and the same
has answered by both the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court in coming to such a conclusion that when the parties
have partitioned the property and acted upon, question of
existence of undivided Hindu joint family between the
plaintiffs and defendants doesn't arise. When the joint
possession and existence of joint family is not proved,
question of admitting and framing any substantive
question of law doesn't arise. Hence, I do not find any
ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Second appeal is dismissed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50064
HC-KAR
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if
any do not survive for consideration, the
same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
