Karnataka High Court
Bhagyamma vs Rangaswamy on 14 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
RSA No. 1851 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1851 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. BHAGYAMMA
W/O JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A BELLUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571418.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 2. RANGAMMA
Location: HIGH D/O LATE RANGAIAH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KARNATAKA
3. GOWRI
D/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. JAVARAIAH
S/O SANNAKULLA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT BELLUR VILLAGE
AND HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571418.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
RSA No. 1851 of 2021
HC-KAR
5. JAVARAMMA
D/O SANNAKULLA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT AMRUTHURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572111.
6. JAYARATHNAMMA
C/O KEMPAIAH
D/O SANNAKULLA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.1038
10TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS
DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-570057.
7. PUTTARANGAMMA
W/O MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT HESARUGATTA VILLAGE
T.B.ANNAMMA THOTA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560088.
8. RANGAMMA
W/O SHANKAR
D/O LATE SANNAKULLA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
9. RAMACHANDRA
S/O DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
10. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
11. GOVINDAIAH
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
RSA No. 1851 of 2021
HC-KAR
12. SUBRAMANI
AGEDA BOUT 66 YEARS
BEHIND HARIJAN COLONY
RESPONDENTS NO.9 50 12 ARE
R/AT BELLUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571418.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 AND R8 TO R12 ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025;
NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.04.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.70/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
2. The present second appeal is filed by defendant
No.10 questioning grant of decree in respect of item No.3 of
the suit schedule property. In the suit, it is contended that the
property is her self-acquired property purchased out of her own
income and out of her own savings, she had purchased by
paying consideration of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The Trial Court also framed an issue with regard to
the very claim made by defendant No.10 and also in view of
defence which was taken, additional issue was framed whether
defendant No.10 proves that suit item No.3 is her stridhana
property.
4. The defendant No.10 examined herself as D.W.3,
wherein she deposed before the Court that she had purchased
the property out of her own savings. When she was subjected
to cross-examination, answers are elicited that there were 3
daughters and 4 brothers to her parents and also categorically
admits that her father was doing coolie work and father had
spent money for performing marriage of 3 daughters. It is also
contended that the property was purchased in the year 1976,
but, in order to substantiate that she has saved the money and
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
used the same, nothing is placed on record. Even for having
pledged the gold ornaments also, since she claims that she had
utilized the said amount for purchase of the property, nothing is
placed on record. It is also her claim that she has saved some
money by doing coolie work and she had saved whatever the
amount her father had given and purchased the property.
Distinct defences were also taken during the course of cross-
examination. Hence, the Trial Court did not accept the defence
of D.W.3.
5. Though D.W.4 is also examined in support of her
case, it is also elicited from the mouth of D.W.4 also that all the
children were depending on the income of her parents and
when the answer was elicited from the mouth of D.W.4 also,
the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that same has not been
proved. Even the First Appellate Court also having reassessed
the material available on record, in paragraph No.21 discussed
the same, since she has claimed that she has purchased the
property i.e., item No.3 from defendant No.1 out of her father's
income, but during the course of cross-examination, she
deposed that about 30 years ago, she got married to defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
No.1 and also taken note of the fact that his father was having
4 sons and 3 daughters and that her father died and only
mother was alive and her brothers and sisters are also married.
But, claims that her father was doing coolie work and having
small piece of land measuring 6 guntas and there cannot be
any income from the said land and they have raised coconut
trees in the said land. When such admission was taken note of,
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in detail
discussed the same and also spending the amount of
Rs.2,000/- for purchasing the property to the extent of 19
guntas which is not substantiated by the contention of the
appellant. It is also taken note that at the time of purchase of
item No.3 of the schedule property, her father has not given
any amount to her and her father himself purchased item No.3.
But, she has not produced any piece of document, to prove that
she was having income to purchase the property and in detail
discussed the same in paragraph Nos.21 and 22 and comes to
the conclusion that, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the
very contention of defendant No.10 cannot be accepted. Being
aggrieved by the finding of Trial Court as well as the First
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this
court.
6. The learned counsel appearing the appellant would
vehemently contend that though defendant No.10 adduced the
evidence that item No.3 of schedule property is the self-
acquired property of defendant No.10 which was purchased out
of her income obtained from her father and also by pledging
her ornaments, both the Courts have not accepted the same
and contend that ought to have examined the oral evidence
placed on record by the appellant. Hence, this Court has to
admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law that
both the Courts have committed an error and there is
perversity in the finding. The counsel also would repeat the
grounds which have been urged in the second appeal and
contend that both Courts have committed an error in not
considering both oral and documentary evidence available on
record.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that, in order to
substantiate the claim of defendant No.10 that item No.3 is the
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
self-acquired property, nothing is placed on record. Both the
Courts in detail discussed while considering the material on
record whether the property is purchased out of her self-earned
money and whether she had taken money from her father and
the said fact is also not substantiated. Hence, no grounds to
admit and frame substantial question of law.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is not
in dispute that property was purchased in the name of
defendant No.10 in the year 1976 and the sale deed is also
placed on record. It is also important to note that defendant
No.1, who is the husband of defendant No.10 is the Kartha of
the family is also not in dispute. It is also important to note
that when D.W.3 categorically admits that her parents were
having 7 children and father used to maintain the family out of
the income from his coolie work and no other source of income
to the father also to give money to the daughter. The
admission on the part of D.W.4 is also very clear that family
ground was also spoken by D.W.4. When such admissions are
elicited during the course of cross- examination of D.W.3, both
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
the Courts comes to the conclusion that distinct defences were
taken during the course of evidence as well as during the
course of cross-examination and when the defence was taken
that by pledging her gold ornaments, she has purchased the
property, the same is also not supported by any documentary
proof, but only claims that property stands in her name and
hence, claimed the same as stridhana property and for having
the same as stridhana property also, nothing is placed on
record and for having given money to purchase the property as
stridhana also, nothing is placed on record, but her only
contention is that whatever the amount she has saved from
doing coolie work, she had purchased the property i.e., the
amount of Rs.2,000/- in the year 1976. Hence, both the Courts
taken note that Rs.2,000/- amount in the year 1976 is not a
reasonable amount and also with regard to saving of that much
of amount, nothing is placed on record. Hence, not accepted
the case of defendant No.10.
9. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged, the very contention that both the Courts have
committed an error and it amounts to perversity cannot be
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25796
HC-KAR
accepted and both the Courts have taken note of admission
that her parents were having 7 children and father was
depending on the income of his coolie work for maintaining the
family and also to perform the marriage of 3 daughters. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame any substantial question of law. Even the First Appellate
Court also in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.21 to
23 and there is no perversity in the findings of both the Courts
and both the Courts have taken note of question of fact and
question of law and no grounds to admit and frame substantial
question of law.
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
