Karnataka High Court
Sri Gopalakrishna vs Sri D. Subbarayappa on 25 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
RSA No. 509 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.509 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA,
S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT VADAKUNTE VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
SRI CHENNAPPA,
S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2. SMT. LAKASHAMMA,
Digitally signed
W/O CHENNAPPA,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SMT. BHYAGYAMMA,
KARNATAKA D/O CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
4. SRI GOVINDA RAJU,
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
5. SMT. LATHA,
D/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT VADAKUNTE VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
RSA No. 509 of 2022
HC-KAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
6. SMT. D. GANGAMMA,
W/O ARALUMALLIGAIAH,
D/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
7. SRI. D. CHIKAVENKATIAH,
S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT VADAKUNTE VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
SMT.JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA,
D/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH.
DEFENDANT No.3 WAS DEAD WHEN
RA WAS PENDING AND SHE HAS NO LRS.
HENCE SHE WAS NOT MADE PARTY.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. D. SUBBARAYAPPA,
S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. LAKSHAMMA,
W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
2. SRI. KRISHNA S,
S/O LATE SUBBARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
RSA No. 509 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI. DEVARAJA S,
S/O LATE SUBBARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.120, 11TH CROSS,
GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021.
NOW RESIDING AT NO.149,
'NESARA', 2ND CROSS, ITI LAYOUT,
NAGARBHAVI 1ST STAGE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560039.
4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR'
NADAKACHERI,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
SRI. D .VENKATANARASAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
5. SMT. VENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
6. SMT. PRAMILA,
DO LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
7. SRI. NARASIMAIAH MURTHY,
S/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
8. SMT. NALINA,
W/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
9. SRI. SRINIVASA,
S/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.1703/44,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
RSA No. 509 of 2022
HC-KAR
1ST MAIN ROAD,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560021.
10. SRI VAKKODAPPA,
S/O DODDANNA @ DODAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT VADKUNTE VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2021
PASSED IN RA.NO.15/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
06.04.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.348/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMAGALA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief
of partition contending that the suit schedule properties are
all the joint family properties. The respondent/defendant
No.1 took the specific defence in the written statement that
he was working and separately earning from 1963 onwards,
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
HC-KAR
earlier in the Railway Department and thereafter he joined
the GKW Factory. It is contended that when he was
working, he met with an accident and lost his left eye on
16.11.1972 and he was getting the disability pension. In
support of his contentions, he placed on record the
document of Ex.D.15 passbook of Bank of Maharashtra for
having the amount to purchase the property and produced
Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 30.05.1983 and contend that the
said property is his self-acquired property.
3. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record and also the admission on the part of
P.W.1 in the cross-examination, extracted the same in
paragraph No.19, wherein he has categorically admitted
that till the death of the father, the father was the kartha of
the family. The contention was also taken that defendant
No.1 was the kartha of the family. The fact that the father
died in the year 1993 and the property was purchased in
the year 1983 in the name of defendant No.1 is not in
dispute. The Trial Court having considered the document of
Ex.D.15 and both oral and documentary evidence placed on
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
HC-KAR
record and admission on the part of P.W.1, comes to the
conclusion that item Nos.1 and 2 are the self-acquired
property of defendant No.1 and granted the relief in respect
of item Nos.3 to 9 of the suit schedule properties and
declined to grant relief in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the
suit schedule properties by answering issue No.6 in the
affirmative that the same is the self-acquired property of
defendant No.1.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15/2018. The
First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged
in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the
Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in respect of
item Nos.1 and 2 as the self-acquired property of defendant
No.1 and whether it requires interference of this Court.
The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material
available on record, particularly taken note of the document
of Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 30.05.1983, which was
purchased by defendant No.1 out of his self-earning. It is
the specific case of defendant No.1 that he went out of the
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
HC-KAR
family in the year 1963 on account of his employment and
acquired the property in the year 1983. The First Appellate
Court also taken note of the admission given by P.W.1
himself in the cross-examination that the father was the
kartha of the family till his death. The fact that the father
died in the year 1993 is not in dispute. The First Appellate
Court having re-assessed the material on record, in
paragraph No.49 taken note of the documents of Exs.D.22
to 28, which evidence the fact that defendant No.1 was an
employee, Exs.D.31 and 32 including his terminal benefits
from employment, Ex.D.15 pass book, which according to
defendant No.1 evidence the salary which he was receiving
as on the date of acquiring the property in terms of Ex.D.1
so as to shift the onus upon the claim made by the plaintiff.
Though it is contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.1
was the kartha of the family, the First Appellate Court
taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 that the father
was the kartha of the family till his death and hence not
accepted the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was
the kartha and he had purchased the property in his name
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
HC-KAR
and comes to the conclusion that the property is the self-
acquired property of defendant No.1.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants in his
arguments would vehemently contend that both the Courts
have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that
defendant No.1 is not the kartha of the family even prior
and subsequent to the death of the propositus Doddaiah.
The First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to
the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 2 are the self-acquired
properties of defendant No.1 and both the Courts have not
considered the material available on record in proper
perspective and hence it requires interference of this Court
and prays this Court to admit the appeal and frame
substantial question of law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and on perusal of the material available on
record, both the Courts have taken note of Ex.D.15 pass
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
HC-KAR
book of Bank of Maharashtra as well as Ex.D.22 ID card,
Ex.D.23 salary certificate, Ex.D.24 ID card and Ex.D.25
terminal benefits as well as the contents of the document of
Ex.D.1 sale deed and the sale deed is in the name of
defendant No.1. Apart from that, both the Courts have
taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 himself that the
father was the kartha of the family till his death and the
fact that the father died in the year 1993 is not in dispute
and item Nos.1 and 2 were purchased in the year 1983.
When such admission was given by P.W.1 himself, both the
Courts having taken note of the evidence on record, both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record, not
committed any error in coming to the conclusion that item
Nos.1 and 2 are the self-acquired properties of defendant
No.1. Both oral and documentary evidence placed on record
supports the case of defendant No.1 and both the Courts
rightly comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 has
proved that item Nos.1 and 2 are his self-acquired
properties. When such being the case and when the factual
material was taken note of and question of law also taken
note of and considered by the First Appellate Court, I do
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22256
HC-KAR
not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame
substantial question of law. Hence, no ground to admit the
appeal.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
