Karnataka High Court
Muddagangamma vs Smt. Anusuyamma on 2 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
RSA No. 1582 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1582 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
MUDDAGANGAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS ON
RECORD I.E., APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4
JANARDHANA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SMT. SULOCHANA S,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O LATE JANARDHANA
2. SMT. SUDHA J,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
Digitally signed D/O LATE JANARDHANA
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 3. SMT. DEEPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
D/O LATE JANARDHANA,
ALL RESIDING AT
BELTHUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 049.
4. SMT. NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
D/O LATE B.T.LAKSHMIKANTHACHAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
RSA No. 1582 of 2023
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE
VIRGONAGARA POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE -560 049.
5. SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE B.T. LAKSHMIKANTHACHAR
RESIDING AT BELTHUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 049.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRANAV T.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.R.VISWANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
D/O LATE B.T.THIMMACHAR
2. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
D/O LATE B.T.THIMMACHAR
3. SMT. INDIRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE B.T.THIMMACHAR,
4. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
D/O LATE B.T.THIMMACHAR,
5. SRI. JAYACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.T. SURYANARAYANACHAR
6. SMT. VIJAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
RSA No. 1582 of 2023
HC-KAR
D/O LATE B.T. SURYANARAYANACHAR
7. SRI. VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.T. SURYANARAYANACHAR,
8. SRI. PADMANABHA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.T. SURYANARAYANACHAR,
9. SMT. B.S. GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE B.T. SURYANARAYANACHAR,
10. SRI. GAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.T. SURYANARAYANACHAR,
11. SRI. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE B T SURYANARAYANACHAR,
12. SMT. SUGUNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
D/O LATE B T SURYANARAYANACHAR,
NOS.1 TO 12 RESIDING AT
BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE 560 049.
13. SRI. RAVINDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE B T KRISHNACHAR
14. SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE B T KRISHNACHAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
RSA No. 1582 of 2023
HC-KAR
15. SRI. SHANTHA PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE B.T.KRISHNACHAR
NOS.13 TO 15 RESIDING
AT DEVASUNDRA
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
16. SMT. AMBUJAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O LATE B T NEELACHAR
17. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE B T NEELACHAR
18. SMT. SARASWATHI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
D/O LATE B T NEELACHAR
19. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D/O LATE B T NEELACHAR
20. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
D/O LATE B T NEELACHAR
21. SRI. DIVAKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE B T NEELACHAR
NOS.16 TO 21 RESIDING
AT BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDRAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
22. SRI. SUDARSHAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE B T SHAMACHAR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
RSA No. 1582 of 2023
HC-KAR
23. SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE B T SHAMACHAR
24. SRI. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE B T SHAMACHAR
25. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O LATE B T SHAMACHAR
26. SRI. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE B T SHAMACHAR
NOS.22 TO 26 RESIDING
AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 049.
27. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
W/O LATE B T DASACHAR
28. SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE B T DASACHAR
29. SRI. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE B T DASACHAR
30. SRI. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE B T DASACHAR
NOS.27 TO 30 RESIDING
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
RSA No. 1582 of 2023
HC-KAR
AT BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 049.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, R7, R8,
R10 AND R11)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.2/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL DISTIRCT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2021
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1628/2013 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the caveator respondent Nos.5, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
HC-KAR
2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent
finding of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The
very claim made by the plaintiff/appellant before the Trial
Court seeking the relief of partition claiming 1/7th share in
respect of the suit schedule properties. Though it is the
claim that the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties, nothing is placed on record before the Trial
Court that the suit schedule properties are joint family
properties. The Trial Court while considering the both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of
the fact that item No.1 property was gifted by Vajrappa in
the name of father of defendant Nos.5 to 12 and hence,
comes to the conclusion that item No.1 is the separate
property of father of defendant Nos.5 to 12 and so also in
respect of item No.2 and the same was purchased by
Suryanarayanachar and same was standing in his name
only, then in the name of defendant Nos.5 to 12 and the
same is self acquired property of late Suryanarayanachar
and so also in respect of item No.3 is concerned, the same
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
HC-KAR
is purchased by Jaychandra that is defendant No.5 and
also taken note of that there are no single piece of
evidence from the plaintiff's side in order to show that said
property is joint family property and so also in respect of
item No.4 is concerned, same is standing in the name of
third persons and those third persons are not made as
parties to the proceedings and hence, question of
considering item No.4 does not arise and this finding of
Trial Court also confirmed by the First Appellate Court
having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record. The First Appellate Court having taken
note of the documents of acquiring the property by the
father Suryanarayanachar and also considering the gift
deed and even re-assessing the material on record, comes
to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not produced any
revenue document before the Court to prove that it is their
joint family properties and the same is observed in
paragraph Nos.31 and 32 of the judgment and definite
finding was given that in order to comes to a conclusion
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
HC-KAR
that the property is a joint family property, nothing is
placed on record.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants in his
argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts
fail to consider both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record and would contend that the very finding of the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that the suit
schedule properties are not the joint family properties is
not correct and substantive question of law framed by the
counsel for appellants with regard to the issue of fact
finding. Having considered the grounds urged in the
second appeal as well as substantive question of law
framed by the counsel for appellant, nothing is found with
regard substantive question of law for consideration of
second appeal. When both the Courts have given fact
finding that nothing is placed on record that property
belongs to the joint family, question of reconsideration in a
second appeal with regard to the fact finding does not
arise unless finding of both the Courts are perverse and no
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18458
HC-KAR
such material is found before the Court to consider the
second appeal on merits and hence, there are no grounds
to admit the second appeal and to frame substantive
question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
