Karnataka High Court
Manja vs Boraiah on 4 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
RSA No. 2000 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJA
S/O DODDABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O DODDABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. SANNADEVAMMA
W/O DODDABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
4. SUJATHA
D/O DODDABORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
SUNITHA K S 5. THAYAMMA
D/O DODDABORAIAH
Location:
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 6. MANJULA
D/O DODDABORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O SINDHAGHATA VILLAGE,
SEELANERE HOBLI
K.R. PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-572 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
RSA No. 2000 of 2017
HC-KAR
AND:
1. BORAIAH
S/O LATE PIDDE @ BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2. VARALAKSHMI @ KADAMMA
W/O LATE PIDDE @ BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O SINDHAGHATTA VILLAGE
SEELANERE HOBLI
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.6.2017 PASSED IN RA
NO.86/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, K.R.PET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2010 PASSED IN OS
NO.21/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
JMFC, K.R. PET.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017
passed in R.A.No.86/2010 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet, and the judgment and
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
preliminary decree dated 18.10.2010 passed in
O.S.No.21/2000 by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and
JMFC, Krishnarajpete.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to,
based on their rankings before the trial Court. The
appellants were the defendants, and respondents were the
plaintiffs.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this
appeal are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for
partition and separate possession. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 and the defendants are cousin
brothers, and members of a Hindu undivided joint family.
It is contended that suit schedule properties are the
ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and
defendants. There is no partition effected between the
plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs demanded
partition and separate possession, but the defendants
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action
arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and
separate possession, claiming a half share over the entire
suit schedule properties. Accordingly, prays to decree the
suit.
3.1. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed a written
statement denying the averments made in the plaint and
also denied the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with the
defendants. It is contended that the plaintiffs are
strangers to the family of the defendants. The plaintiffs
have no right to claim a share in the suit schedule
properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
3.3. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1
was examined as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PWs.2
and 3, and marked 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. In
rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1,
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
examined one witness as DW.2, and marked one
document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the
evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal
and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs, and ordered and declared that the plaintiffs
together are entitled to a half share in the suit schedule
properties, vide judgment dated 18.10.2010.
3.4. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and
preliminary decree dated 18.10.2010 passed in
O.S.No.21/2000, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.86/2010
on the file of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC,
K.R.Pet.
3.5. The first Appellate Court, on reassessing the
verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal
vide judgment dated 14.06.2017. The defendants,
aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular
second appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Girish B. Baladare,
the learned counsel for the defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits
that the plaintiffs are strangers to the family of the
defendants. The plaintiffs have failed to establish
relationship with the defendants. The plaintiffs are not
entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule properties.
He also submits that plaintiff No.2 has not entered the
witness box, and has not proved the contents of the
documents. He submits that impugned judgments passed
by the courts below are arbitrary, and erroneous. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
6. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants.
7. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1
was examined as PW.1, and he has reiterated the plaint
averments in the examination-in-chief. To establish the
relationship with the defendants, the plaintiffs have
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
produced the documents, The marriage invitation card of
plaintiff No.1's father is marked as Ex.P11. The said
document came into existence in 1977, and the plaintiffs
also produced election I.D cards of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
which are marked as Ex.P12 and 13. Furthermore, the
plaintiffs also examined PW.2, who is a relative of both the
plaintiffs and the defendants. He deposed that the
plaintiffs are related to the defendants, and the suit
schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. He
also deposed that no partition has been effected between
the plaintiffs and defendants. Nothing has been elicited in
the course of cross-examination of PW.2, to disbelieve
their evidence. The plaintiff examined PW.3 to show that
there was settlement proceedings took place between the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2.
8. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as
DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments
in the examination-in-chief. During the course of cross-
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
examination of DW.1, he has not denied the relationship
between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial Court
considering Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
has held that the plaintiffs have proved their relationship
with the defendants, the suit schedule properties are the
ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and
defendants, they are the members of Hindu undivided
joint family, no partition is effected between them and
rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.
9. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the
verbal and documentary evidence, has recorded a finding
that the plaintiffs have proved the relationship with the
defendants and, the first Appellate Court relying on the
nature of the suit schedule properties, rightly confirmed
the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial
Court. Both the Courts below have rightly considered the
evidence of PW.2 to establish the relationship of the
plaintiffs with the defendants and decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs. I do not find any error in the impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:18917
HC-KAR
judgments or any substantial question of law that arises
for consideration in this appeal.
10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed.
ii. The judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below, are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2017
does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly,
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
