Karnataka High Court
V A Kondappa vs Smt Lakshmidevi on 16 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
RSA No. 919 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.919 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
V A KONDAPPA
S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT THIRUMANI VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DIST-572 136.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
Location: HIGH W/O. LATE V. A. RAMAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
R/AT THIRUMANI VILLAGE
PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKURU DIST
NOW R/AT JANATHALUR VILLAGE,
B. K. SAMUDRAM MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 701.
2. SRI. V. A. VENKATESH
S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT THIRUMANI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
RSA No. 919 of 2024
HC-KAR
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DIST-572 136.
3. SMT. GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SANJEEVAPPA,
S/O LATE CHINNARANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. JANARDHANA
S/O SANJEEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
5. AMBIKA
D/O SANJEEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT RAMAGIRI,
RAMAGIRI MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 612.
6. APARNA
W/O SUDHAKARA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT RANGAPURAM VILLAGE,
NARPAL MANDAL,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 612.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2024
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
RSA No. 919 of 2024
HC-KAR
PASSED IN R.A. NO.5007/2020 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for consideration of
I.A.No.1/2025 wherein prayed for condonation of delay of
45 days in filing the appeal.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of both the Courts. The suit was filed for the relief
of declaration and permanent injunction. It is contended
that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. The defendant appeared and contend
that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 leased the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 and the
plaintiff has no right to stop the lease amount from
defendant No.4 to the defendants . The defendants though
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
HC-KAR
filed the written statement, not led any evidence and when
the suit was pending, given consent for decreeing the suit
in favour of the plaintiff. Having taken note of the pleading
of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Trial Court answered
Issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative since there is an
admission that there was a partition between the parties
and Issue No.3 is answered as negative and while
answering Issue No.4, the Trial Court saw the conduct of
the defendants that once they denied the relief and later
gave the consent to decree the suit and hence, the same
is nothing but interference with the possession of he
plaintiff and answered the said Issue as affirmative.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in
R.A.No.5007/2020 and the First Appellate Court also
having considered the grounds urged in the appeal,
formulated the point that whether the Trial Court
committed any error by declaring the plaintiff as owner of
the suit schedule properties by holding that she got right
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
HC-KAR
over the suit schedule properties by virtue of partition
deed dated 14.07.2016 and reassessed the material on
record. Having considered the fact that there was already
partition between the parties, the First Appellate Court
also dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the
concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present appeal
is filed before this Court.
4. The main contention of the counsel for the
appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in
decreeing the suit and failed to appreciate the material on
record in a proper perspective. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also not
justified in dismissing the appeal filed by defendant No.1
and defendant No.1 was in the right state of mind when
the matter was taken up by the Trial Court was not taken
note of by the First Appellate Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and also on perusal of the material on
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
HC-KAR
record, it discloses that the suit was filed for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff.
Though the defendants filed the written statement,
admitted the earlier partition. When already there was a
partition and document also entered, the Trial Court in
detail considered the same while answering Issue Nos.1
and 2 as affirmative since the plaintiff has been in
possession of the property consequent upon the partition.
There is no dispute with regard to the partition is
concerned. Even though written statement was filed, not
entered into the witness box by the defendants and not
led any evidence and given consent to decree the suit in
favour of the plaintiff. First Appellate Court having
reassessed the material on record, in paragraph 12, taken
note of the document placed on record and also the
partition taken place between them i.e., between the
plaintiff and defendant No.1, 2 and 3 and the respective
survey numbers are also allotted in favour of the plaintiff.
The First Appellate Court considered the same and also
NC: 2025:KHC:20551
HC-KAR
considering the admission in the written statement
wherein it is very clear that partition was effected between
them and possession also given in favour of the plaintiff
and rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the
owner and she in possession of the suit schedule property.
When such being the case, I do not find any error
committed by both the Courts and question of framing of
substantive question of law as suggested by the learned
counsel for the appellant does not arise in the absence of
leading any evidence. Thus, I do not find any grounds to
admit the second appeal and to frame substantive
questions of law since the appellant not led any evidence.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if
any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
