Karnataka High Court

Krishnegowda vs Sri H K Basavaraju on 11 June, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:20111
                                                           RSA No. 98 of 2014


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2014 (PAR)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.      KRISHNEGOWDA
                           SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

                   1(A)    H.K.SANDYA,
                           D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
                           AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

                   1(B)    H.K.VANI
                           D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
                           AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

                   2.      SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
                           W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
Digitally signed           AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
by SUNITHA K
S                          ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.4,
Location:                  1ST CROSS, RANGANATHAPURA,
HIGH COURT                 M.TEMPLE ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA,
OF                         BANGALORE-560 079.
KARNATAKA
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                   (BY SRI. G. M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.     SRI H K BASAVARAJU
                          S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
                          AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:20111
                                      RSA No. 98 of 2014


HC-KAR




2.   SMT. CHIKKALAKSHMI
     W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

3.   SMT. LEELA
     D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

4.   SMT. REVATHI
     D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

     RESPONDENT No.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF
     NO.141/2, 8TH MAIN ROAD, M.C.LAYOUT,
     VIJAYANAGARA,
     BANGALORE-560 040.

5.   SRI. H.K. DINESHA
     D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     RESIDENT OF KESHAVA ARTS,
     OPPOSITE SYNDICATE BANK,
     BIKKANAKATTE,
     MANGALORE-575 005.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. J M ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2
    SRI. Y.S.H. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5
    R3 & R4 ARE SERVED)

      THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT    &   DECREE   DTD    27.4.2013   PASSED   IN
R.A.NO.290/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-II, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 13.4.2009
PASSED IN OS.NO.298/2004 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HASSAN.
                             -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:20111
                                           RSA No. 98 of 2014


HC-KAR




     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 27.04.2013,

passed in R.A.No.290/2009 by the learned Fast Track

Court - II and Additional District Judge, Hassan, and the

judgment and preliminary decree dated 13.04.2009

passed in O.S.No.298/2004 by the learned Additional Civil

Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Hassan.

2. For convenience, THE parties are referred to

based on their rankings before the trial Court. Appellants

No.1(a) and 1(b) were the legal representatives of

defendant No.1, appellant No.2 was defendant No.6, and

respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent Nos.2

to 5 were defendants No.2 to 5.

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal

are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for

partition and separate possession and for declaration that

Gift deed dated 21.05.2004 as not binding. It is the case

of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 5

are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit

schedule properties are the ancestral properties;

defendant No.1 inherited the suit schedule properties from

his father, Annegowda. The plaintiff and defendants are

members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no

partition has been effected between the plaintiff and the

defendants. It is contended that after the death of Smt.

Puttamma, Annegowda's two sons, i.e., defendant No.1

and Beluregowda got divided the properties under a

partition deed dated 20.11.2003, which are the suit

schedule properties, i.e., item Nos.1, 2 and 4.

3.1. It is contended that defendant No.1, having

been addicted to bad habits and having neglected the

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

family, has executed a registered gift deed dated

21.05.2004 in favour of defendant No.6 regarding items

Nos.1 and 2 of the suit proeprties. It is contended that

defendant No.1 has no right to execute the registered gift

deed regarding item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule

properties. The Gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff. It

is contended that the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to

effect a partition, but the defendants refused to effect a

partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff

to file a suit for partition and separate possession.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.2. Defendants No.1 and 6 filed a written statement

contending that since defendant No.2 and her children had

deserted defendant No.1, having no other alternative, with

the blessings of his mother, had married defendant No.6,

and had two daughters out of their wedlock. It is

contended that suit schedule properties are not ancestral

properties. That Puttamma, the mother of defendant

No.1, had purchased item Nos.2 and 4 of the suit schedule

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

properties out of her own income under the registered sale

deed dated 19.02.1958. Items No.1, 2 and 4 of the suit

schedule properties was fallen to the share of defendant

No.1 in the partition between him and his brother on

20.11.2003 and item No.3 is the land granted in favour of

defendant No.1. It is also contended that KIADB acquired

the ancestral property and gave compensation, and the

same was divided amongst the family members. It is

contended that defendant No.1 had borrowed money from

some private persons for performing the marriage of

defendant No.5, and after selling another self-acquired

property in Bangalore, he had given a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to

defendant No.2 for her maintenance, and she executed an

agreement on 22.01.2003. Hence, defendants No.1 and 6

prays to dismiss the suit against defendants No.1 and 6.

3.3. Defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have filed a joint a

written statement, admitting that the suit properties are

the joint properties and accordingly supported the

plaintiff's claim.

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

3.4. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the

parties, framed the relevant issues.

3.5. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined

one witness as PW.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1

to 8. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1,

2 witnesses were examined as DWs.2 and 3, and marked

6 documents as Exs.D1 to D6. The trial court, after

recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on

assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, partly

decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated

13.04.2009. It is ordered and declared that the plaintiff is

entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/6th share

in the suit schedule properties. It is also declared that the

gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of

defendant No.6 regarding items Nos.1 and 2 of the suit

schedule properties is not binding on the right of the

plaintiff. It is also further held that the plaintiff is entitled

to mesne profits in the suit schedule properties in respect

of his share from the date of suit till handing over the

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

possession of his share in the suit schedule properties, and

there shall be a separate enquiry about mesne profits as

per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.

3.5. Legal representatives of defendant No.1, and

defendant No.6, aggrieved by the judgment and

preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.298/2004, preferred

an appeal in R.A.No.290/2009 on the file of learned Fast

Track Court-II and Additional District Judge, Hassan.

3.6. The first Appellate Court after hearing the

parties and on reassessing the verbal and documentary

evidence, dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment

dated 27.04.2013. The legal representatives of defendant

No.1 and defendant No.6, aggrieved by the impugned

judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri.

G.M.Sharath Kumar for Sri. Chethan B., for the legal

representatives of defendants No.1 and 6.

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

5. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of

defendants No.1 and 6 submits that the courts below have

committed an error in passing the impugned judgments.

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

6. Perused the records, and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the legal

representatives of defendant Nos.1 and 6.

7. There is no dispute regarding the relationship

between the parties to the suit. Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 are

the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant

No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit schedule

properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of

the plaintiff and defendants, and no partition is effected

between the plaintiff and defendants. To prove that the

suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family

properties, the plaintiff has produced documents marked

as Exs.P1 to P8. Ex.P4 is the registered sale deed, which

discloses that item Nos.2 and 4 were purchased by

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

Puttamma, i.e., the mother of defendant No.1, under a

registered sale deed. She died, and after her demise,

items Nos.2 and 4 devolved upon defendant No.1. Insofar

as item No.3 of the suit schedule property is concerned, it

was granted in favour of defendant No.1 by the

Government, as defendant No.1 is an elder male member

of the family. The Land Tribunal granted the said land in

favour of defendant No.1, on behalf of the family. Further,

insofar as item Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, the said

properties were purchased by Puttamma, and she became

the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956.

8. Both the Courts below, considering the suit

schedule properties as the ancestral and joint family

properties, have rightly held that the plaintiff and

defendants are the members of the Hindu joint family, and

no partition is effected between the parties to the suit, and

rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The first Appellate

Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20111

HC-KAR

evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in

the impugned judgments or any substantial question of

law, that arises for consideration in this appeal.

9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the

courts below, are hereby confirmed.

No order as to the costs.