[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. G. M. Sidramappa vs Sri. G. M. Onkarappa on 15 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
RSA No. 622 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.622 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.M.SIDRAMAPPA,
S/O MALLAPALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLURU POST,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SRI. G.M. ONKARAPPA,
S/O. MALLAPALAIAH,
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O. MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DISHANI POST, ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
2. SRI. G.M.JAYAPPA,
S/O MALLAPALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLURU POST,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK-573201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
RSA No. 622 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. SMT. SHIVAMMA,
W/O SIDDANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLURU POST,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK-573201.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O GADARI PALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLURU POST,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK-573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.11.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.62/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 03.11.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.20/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND ADDITIONAL JMFC,
TARIKERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
RSA No. 622 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties belongs to
the plaintiffs and the defendants and hence, the plaintiffs are
entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. The Trial
Court granted the relief, since the defendants did not appear
and contest the matter. However, the Trial Court considering
the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the
plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule
properties. The same is challenged before the First Appellate
Court by filing an appeal and there was a delay of 10 years 20
days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate Court given an
opportunity to lead evidence and considered the material on
record that notice has been served against all the defendants
and none of the defendants have appeared and contested the
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
HC-KAR
matter. The First Appellate Court also observed that the Trial
Court even taken note of time was given for appearance and
did not choose to appear and though the suit was filed for the
relief of partition, ultimately passed the judgment on
06.11.2009. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the
evidence of the appellant, wherein he categorically admitted
about the filing of the suit and also extracted the answers
elicited from the mouth of the appellant during the course of
cross-examination. He claims that the plaintiff is having a right
over the property, but he had cultivated the property.
However, he categorically admits that he is enjoying the fruits
of the cultivation and also getting income of more than
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. These materials were taken
note of by the First Appellate Court and considering the delay
as well as admission on the part of appellant, dismissed the
appeal.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that no opportunity was given
before the Trial Court. The learned counsel would contend that
the suit schedule properties is valued at Rs.23,00,000/- as per
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
HC-KAR
the valuation slip, which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of
the Trial Court as per Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Court
Act, 1964. Except this ground, no other grounds are urged
before this Court. But only contend that the delay was not
properly considered by the First Appellate Court inspite of the
same is explained.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
would vehemently contend that notice was served to the
defendants and they were not represented and there were four
defendants in the original suit and none of them have contested
the matter and apart from that, no sufficient reasons are given
to condone the delay of 10 years. The learned counsel would
contend that there were clear admission on the part of the
appellant before the First Appellate Court. He categorically
admits that the plaintiff is having a share over the property.
However, his only contention is that he has cultivated the
same. The answer elicited is very clear that he is enjoying the
fruits of the property and hence, the First Appellate Court has
not committed any error. The learned counsel would submit
that the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised before
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
HC-KAR
the Trial Court as well before the First Appellate Court and for
the first time, raised the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
However, 1/5th share amounts to only Rs.4,60,000/- and
hence, cannot contend that no jurisdiction.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no
dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties is
concerned. The plaintiff is the brother of defendant Nos.1 and
2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the plaintiff.
The defendants have not contested the matter before the Trial
Court inspite of service of notice. However, the appeal is filed
after almost 10 years. The First Appellate Court taken note of
delay of 10 years as well as considered the material on record,
particularly the admission given by the appellant before the
First Appellate Court while conducting an enquiry with regard to
the limitation is concerned. Though the learned counsel for the
appellant raised the issue with regard to the pecuniary
jurisdiction is concerned, the learned counsel for the
respondents would submit that the share of the plaintiff is less
than Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also the submission of the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:53112
HC-KAR
counsel for the respondent that the issue with regard to
pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised before the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court. When such being the case and when
the relief of partition is granted in respect of the plaintiff,
whose share is less than Rs.5,00,000/-, I do not find any
ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial
question of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
