Karnataka High Court
Smt. Siddalingamma vs Smt. Udayalakshmi on 7 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.813 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A HOLDER
SRI. D.RAMESH,
SON OF LATE DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
Digitally signed MADHURE HOBLI
by DEVIKA M
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
Location: HIGH BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PIN CODE-561 206.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI AND
SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. UDAYALAKSHMI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF G.V.NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT SABHASH NAGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIVISION NO.1
BEHIND MILK DIARY
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 203.
2. SMT. UMA DEVI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT SABHASH NAGAR
DIVISION NO.1
BEHIND MILK DIARY
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 203.
3. SMT.B.N.NAGAVENI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF K.N.MUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.512/2
VINAYAKA NAGARA
4TH WARD, COURT ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 203.
4. SRI.M. NANJAPPA
SON OF MUDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 206.
5. SMT. PREMA KUMARI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF NAGENDRA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BANDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 206.
6. SMT.MANGALAGOWRI
DAUGHTER OF M.NANJAPPA
WIFE OF MUTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT
TAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE
SAKKAREGOLLALI HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-561 204.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 13.12.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
RSA No. 813 of 2025
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.
2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding
granting 1/6th share in favour of the plaintiffs, who are
daughters of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are
also the daughters of defendant No.1.
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 plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3
are the children of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties
are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 and contend that the partition entered
between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the
plaintiffs.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and mainly
contend that suit is filed only with an intention to harass
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
defendant No.4 and the same is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1
to 3 have alienated Sy.No.215/16 to an extent of 1 acre 2
guntas to one Sathish on 21.02.2012 and the said property is
not included in the suit and suit schedule properties are also
self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 in partition between
the family members. Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties
by oversight had fallen to the share of defendant No.1, but
actually item No.1 of the property was also allotted to
defendant No.4 and thereafter, rectification of the same by the
defendant No.1 and 4 and they have jointly partitioned through
and item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted to
defendant No.4 under registered partition and revenue records
mutated in the name of defendant No.4 and from the date of
partition, the defendant No.4 is in physical possession of the
said land and she is cultivating the same and paying the
necessary taxes to the concerned Department. The suit
schedule properties are self-acquired properties of defendant
No.1 and now, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 colluded
with each other and filed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered the grounds
which have been urged in the plaint as well as grounds urged in
the written statement framed the issues and allowed the
parties to lead evidence. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their
case, examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the GPA
holder of defendant No.4 examined himself as D.W.1 and got
marked the documents as Exs.D1 and D2.
6. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that suit
schedule properties are ancestral properties and partition
between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the
plaintiffs and also taken note of certified copy of sale deed
dated 21.12.2012 at Ex.D2 and the very contention of the
defendants that property which was sold in favour of one
Sathish under sale deed at Ex.D2 on 21.12.2012 was not
included in the suit. The Trial Court having considered both oral
and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that
property which was sold on 21.12.2012 is for family necessity
with the consent of all the parties and the said contention
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
cannot be accepted. The Trial Court also while considering the
material on record comes to the conclusion that suit schedule
properties devolves upon the father i.e., defendant No.1 vide
partition deed dated 15.07.2010 and the same are joint family
properties which devolves upon the grand-father Ramaiah and
comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 had no exclusive
right to execute any deed in favour of defendant No.4 without
the consent of his children i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2
and 3 and also comes to the conclusion that partition deed
between defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on them and
decreed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.5/2022. The First Appellate Court having
considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated
the points whether the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the
evidence on record in a proper perspective and whether
impugned judgment requires interference. The First Appellate
Court having taken note of the fact that suit schedule
properties are their ancestral and joint family properties as the
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
same were acquired by the father i.e., defendant No.1 through
registered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 which is marked as
Ex.P9 and also taken note that though defendant No.1 filed the
written statement, but he has stated no objection to allot equal
share to the plaintiffs in item Nos.2 to 5. It is also further
contended that plaintiffs are no way concerned to item No.1,
but he did not choose to substantiate the same by examining
himself as witness before the Court. The First Appellate Court
has taken note of documents at Exs.P9 and P10 and Ex.P19 is
intersay between defendant Nos.1 and 4 and also taken note of
the fact that defendant No.1 has not challenged the alienation
made by the father long back and the said alienation was made
with consent of the plaintiffs and they are not willing to seek
any share which is observed in paragraph No.15 of the
judgment and comes to the conclusion that the question of
including the alienated properties of dismissing the suit for non-
joinder of necessary parties and properties does not arise. The
First Appellate Court also taken note of item No.1 is also an
ancestral property of defendant Nos.1 and 4, if they have
entered into any such partition in terms of Ex.P10 and the
same is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
and also taken note of the recital made in Ex.P10 for having
made the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant No.1 in
terms of the partition of the year 2014 and the same is not
binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court.
8. Learned for the appellant in his argument would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in granting the relief of partition in favour of the plaintiffs
and other defendants i.e., 1/6th share. The counsel would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have misread the
pleadings i.e., both oral and documentary evidence on record
and without proper appreciation of evidence on record,
committed an error in appreciating the documents of Exs.P1 to
P10 and Exs.D1 and D2 and not justified in granting the relief
without considering the subsisting right of the appellant over
the suit schedule properties i.e., item No.1 of the property.
Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial
Court decreed the suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit
schedule properties though the fact is that alienation is for legal
necessity and for the benefits of the members of the family and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
the same as satisfactorily proved by the defendant No.4 and
the said contention is also taken note by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court. But, failed to consider the earlier sale
made by the defendant No.1.
9. The counsel also in support of his argument relied
upon the order passed by this Court in CIVIL REVISION
PETITION NO.470/2023 dated 07.03.2025, wherein this
Court allowed the petition and observed that plaint stands
rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.
10. The main contention of learned counsel for the
appellant in this case is that when already there was sale made
in terms of Ex.D2 and the same was not challenged and with
regard to the said aspect also, answer was elicited from the
mouth of P.W.1 that said sale is made for family necessity and
both the Courts have taken note of Ex.P9 i.e., certified copy of
registered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 under which the
father had derived title in respect of all the items of the suit
schedule properties and also taken note of earlier sale which
was also a consented sale and none of the plaintiffs have
claimed any share in respect of the properties which was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
already sold in terms of Ex.D12. Hence, the very contention of
learned counsel for the appellant that the same was not
questioned and non-inclusion of the purchaser as party to the
proceedings does not arise. Learned counsel also would
vehemently contend that the subsequent document of
registered partition deed dated 13.05.2014 interse between the
defendant Nos.1 and 4 is also not binding and this document of
partition came into existence on 13.05.2014 and the plaintiffs
and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to the same. Hence,
both the Courts comes to the conclusion that the same is not
binding on them. When such being the material on record,
when they are not parties to the partition deed, the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion
that partition deed dated 13.05.2014 entered between
defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the share of the
plaintiffs. When such finding is given and detailed order has
been passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
and when the properties are ancestral properties and 1/6th
share has been granted, I do not find any ground to admit the
second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24370
HC-KAR
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
