[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
D.R. Manjegowda vs Puttaiah on 12 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
RSA No. 1844 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1844 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
D.R. MANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT DASAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHELURU HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK - 572216
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. PUTTAIAH
by DEVIKA M S/O LATE BHUTHANNA
Location: HIGH HUSBAND OF RATHNAMMA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572125
2. KAREGOWDA
S/O PUTTAIAH
AND LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572125
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
RSA No. 1844 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. MANJULA
D/O PUTTAIAH
AND LATE RATHNAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NELADIMMANAHALLI
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572125
4. PUNEETH
S/O PUTTAIAH
AND LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572125
5. RAJAMMA
D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
W/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT THIPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
6. RAMESHA
S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
7. MUDLAPPA
S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
RSA No. 1844 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. KANAKAPPA
S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
9. RANGAMMA
D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
10. HALAPPA
S/O LATE MARALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT HUILDORE VILLAGE
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
11. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT HUILDORE VILLAGE
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
12. KAMAKSHI
S/O HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT HUILDORE VILLAGE
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
RSA No. 1844 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. KALAVATHI
W/O GOVINDARAJU @
GOVINDAPPA
D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NELADIMMANAHALLI
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
14. GEETHA
W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT SHIDLEKONE VILLAGE
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 115
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
15. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA
AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF
RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT 5TH CROSS
MUNICIPAL LAYOUT
SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572103
16. RAGHU
S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572 125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
17. JAYANNA
S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
RSA No. 1844 of 2025
HC-KAR
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK- 572125
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH H V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO F5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2025 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.82/2023 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
The second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and
separate possession is that these two plaintiffs are the
daughters of one Rangashamaiah and the suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs along
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
HC-KAR
with defendant No.1 to 7 and they are entitled for 1/9th share
each of the suit properties and also contend that the sale deed
dated 06.08.2005 is not binding on them. Defendant No.4
appeared and filed written statement contending that suit is
barred by limitation.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record comes to the
conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties and the said fact is not in dispute and sale was made
only by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and plaintiff Nos.1 and
2 and defendant No.4 are not the parties to the said sale deed
and hence, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are entitled for
1/9th share each in the suit schedule properties. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court
in R.A.No.82/2023.
5. The First Appellate Court having considered the
grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo,
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
HC-KAR
formulated the points and reassessing both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record comes to the
conclusion that sale deed executed in favour of the present
appellant is not binding on the plaintiffs and hence, modifying
the judgment of the Trial Court declaring that registered sale
deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in favour of
defendant No.9 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs and
defendant No.4. Hence, there is a concurrent finding from both
the Courts. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both
the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
committed an error in passing such judgment and decree and
also vehemently contend that the question before this Court
that whether there is a proper appreciation of the principles of
law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Veenitha Sharma
vs Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 having
regard to the factum that there was an earlier partition of the
suit schedule properties on 26.05.1962 and as to whether the
partition suit is maintainable in view of the protection being
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
HC-KAR
given in the explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act. The counsel also vehemently contend that both the Courts
failed to take note of this fact into consideration.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respective respondents would vehemently contend that there
was a partition in the year 1962 between Rangashamaiah and
Rangappa who are the children of Mudlappa and there was no
any partition among the legal heirs of Rangashamaiah. Hence,
both the Courts have not committed any error.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that specific pleading was made with regard
to the earlier partition deed dated 26.05.1962 which is between
only the children of Mudlappa i.e., Rangashamiah and
Rangappa and Rangappa also made as defendant No.8 in the
case on hand. But, the suit was filed for the relief of partition
and separate possession in respect of the properties which
devolves upon the Rangashamaiah and there was no any
partition between them. However, property was sold by
defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in favour of the present
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
HC-KAR
appellant and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 were
not parties to the said sale transaction and sale transaction was
also taken place on 06.08.2005 i.e., subsequent to the
amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. When
such being the case, the Trial Court not committed any error in
granting the share. Even though, no observation is made with
regard to the effect of sale deed is concerned. But First
Appellate Court modified the same in coming to the conclusion
that the same is not binding on the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as well
as defendant No.4. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of
the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in granting 1/9th share
each in the suit schedule properties and also held that the sale
deed is not binding on the plaintiffs since they were not parties
to the proceedings. The very contention of counsel appearing
for the appellant in view of the judgment of Vineesh Sharma
referred supra that there was an earlier partition and the said
judgment also not comes to the aid of the appellant since in the
case on hand, the partition was between the father and uncle of
the plaintiffs and there was no any partition among the
members of the joint family of the Rangashamaiah. Hence, I do
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52918
HC-KAR
not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame
substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
9. However, the sale was made in respect of Item
No.5 by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, the appellant can
claim equity before the FDP Court with regard to the share of
the persons which the defendants have sold the same.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.s. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
