[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
D M Ranganatha vs Chikkamuddappa on 12 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
RSA No. 1528 of 2024
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.1528 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. D.M. RANGANATHA
S/O MALERANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE
MUDDANERELKERE MAJARA
I.D. HALLI HBLI
MADHUGIRI TAUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKAMUDDAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. LINGAMMA
W/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY RESPONDENT NO.2 HER LRS
OF DECEASED HAVE ALREADY RECORD BY
NAMELY RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 5.
3. MALERANGAPPA
S/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
RSA No. 1528 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. MUDDARANGAMMA
W/O PUTTALINGAPPA
D/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE
MUDDANERALEKER MAJARA
I.D. HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
5. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O MYLARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT ARASAPURA VILLAGE
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5;
SRI. B.S.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R3 TO R5 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R2,
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
RSA No. 1528 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned counsel for respondent
No.3
2. This second appeal is against the concurrent finding
against defendant No.6, who is a stranger to the family and an
application is filed before this Court i.e., I.A.No.1/2025 for
production of additional documents.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the
Trial Court is that suit schedule properties are ancestral joint
family properties of plaintiff and defendants.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement contending that already there was a partition of joint
family properties about 15 years back between plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 and as such, there exists no joint family
properties. It is also the contention that parties are in
possession and enjoyment of their respective shares in view of
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
the said partition. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of
partition.
5. The Trial Court having framed the issues considered
the pleadings of both the parties and allowed the parties to lead
evidence. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 12 and also examined a
witness as P.W.2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 got
examined himself as D.W.1, defendant No.3 got examined
himself as D.W.2 and he got marked the documents as Exs.D1
to D3 and a witness was examined as D.W.3, but he did not
tender himself for cross-examination. The defendant No.2 got
examined herself as D.W.4.
6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that suit
schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of
plaintiff and defendants, but not accepted the case of the
defendants that there was already a partition and while
considering the defence, the Trial Court in paragraph No.19
comes to the conclusion that in the name of defendant No.1
alone some of the properties were standing and some of the
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
suit properties are standing in the joint names of defendant
Nos.1, 3 and 4 and mode of acquisition is evidence from RTC
Extracts which has already been produced and there was no
partition effected between plaintiff and defendants with respect
to suit schedule properties till this date. Though it is contented
that there was a partition and the same is not substantiated
and suit schedule properties are not mutated till date in
pursuance of the said alleged partition. The defendant No.6
claims that there was a gift deed and the same came into
existence in 2016 and suit was filed in 2013, but not led any
evidence and placed the Gift deed before the Trial Court and
except filing the written statement, not entered into the witness
box.
7. The appeal is filed by defendant No.6 before the
First Appellate Court. Before the First Appellate Court also not
produced any documentary evidence invoking Order 47 Rule 27
CPC. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material
available on record, particularly taking note of evidence of
witnesses comes to the conclusion that defendant No.6 has not
placed iota of document by showing item No.2 is the self-
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
property of defendant No.1. Moreover, defendant No.1 himself
admitted in his written statement that suit item No.2 is the
ancestral property in the undisputed point of time. This suit is
filed in the year 2013 and defendant No.1 filed his written
statement in the year 2013 itself. But, defendant No.6 alleged
that gift deed was executed in the year 2016. So, it is very
clear that at the undisputed point of time, defendant No.1 has
taken contention in his written statement that item No.2 is the
ancestral property of the plaintiff and these defendants and this
aspect has been discussed in paragraph No.22 of the judgment
of the First Appellate Court and defendant No.1 has set up a
plea regarding partition. But, during the course of trial,
defendant No.1 failed to prove the said contention by showing
proper document. Hence, the First Appellate Court answered
point Nos.2 and 3 as 'negative' and in order to prove the fact
that there was a partition also, nothing is placed on record.
However, it is the contention of defendant No.6 that defendant
No.1 executed a gift deed. But, he was not having any
exclusive right to bequeath item No.2 in favour of defendant
No.6 once there is a clear admission that item No.2 is the
ancestral property and defendant No.1 was not having any
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
exclusive right to execute the gift deed. Hence, confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court.
8. In this second appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant would vehemently contend that there was a partition
and the said document was not produced before both the
Courts. But, now learned counsel for the appellant wants to
produce the document of partition deed and the same is not a
registered document and is not admissible in evidence.
However, along with the application, he has produced the gift
deed before this Court. But, not made any efforts before the
Trial Court and even the First Appellate Court to produce the
gift deed. Apart from that, gift deed came into existence in the
year 2016 and the First Appellate Court also in paragraph
No.22 taken note that suit was filed in 2013 and written
statement was filed in the year 2013 itself, wherein also
defendant No.1 categorically admitted that item No.2 of the
schedule property is an ancestral property and the
appellant/defendant No.6 also claims that a gift deed was
executed and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the
conclusion that defendant No.1 was not having any exclusive
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
right to gift the property in favour of defendant No.6, since he
was not having any absolute right and the said document also
came into existence during the pendency of the suit. When
such being the case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court rightly comes to the conclusion that even though
defendant No.6 has come on record before the Trial Court, but
except filing the written statement, not produced any evidence
and not utilized the opportunity and filed any documents before
the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and not
diligent.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
no opportunity was given before the Court and the fact that he
appeared and filed the written statement is not in dispute. But,
not led any evidence and produced any document. Even if any
application is filed before the Appellate Court under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC, the appellant has to substantiate his case by
showing sufficient cause for non-production of the document
and comply with Order 41 Rule 27(a)(aa) CPC. When such
being the case, question of entertaining the application in
second appeal does not arise unless sufficient reason is
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
assigned and if he has taken due care while conducting the
case before the Trial Court and if the document was not in his
custody, then the Court can consider the same. But, it is his
case that gift deed was executed in the year 2016 itself but,
the suit was disposed of in the year 2022. However, the
appellant has not made any efforts to produce the same, that
too during the pendency of the suit and the Executant of the
gift deed was also not having any absolute right to execute the
gift deed in respect of item No.2. When such being the case
and when there is a clear admission that item No.2 is the
ancestral property, defendant No.1 cannot convey any right in
favour of the appellant herein. Hence, I do not find any ground
to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question
of law and no dispute with regard to the relationship between
the parties is concerned and the property is an ancestral joint
family property and the First Appellate Court has rightly
considered the material. Hence, no ground is made up to admit
the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52859
HC-KAR
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
