Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramamma vs Smt Renukamma on 26 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
RSA No. 1251 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMAMMA
W/O ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
R/O KORAKODU VILLAGE
KUPPAGADDE HOBLI
SORAB TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
2. SMT. RENUKA
W/O PARUSHURAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
Digitally signed R/O KUPPAGADDE VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M
KUPPAGADDE HOBLI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SORAB TALUK
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O HIRIYANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
R/O CHITRATTEHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SORAB TALUK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
RSA No. 1251 of 2024
HC-KAR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPDRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.104/2016 ON THE FILE OF C/C.
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA.
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 appearing for the appellants. This Appeal
is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court.
The Trial Court granted the relief of ½ share in the item
Nos. 1 to 3 of suit schedule properties and also ordered
that the registered gift deed dated 05.04.2016 executed
by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect
of item No. 2 of the suit schedule property is not binding
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
HC-KAR
to an extent of share of the plaintiff in item No.2 of the
suit schedule property.
2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, an appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court also
confirmed the same in coming to the conclusion that Trial
Court not committed any error and on re-appreciation of
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in
coming to the conclusion that property belongs to the
Halegudda Kallappa who died on 22.01.2022 leaving
behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs.
The plaintiff has also contended that she is having the ½
share in the suit schedule property. The defendant who
appeared and filed the written statement before the Trial
Court contend that a Will is executed by the father in his
favour in the year 1974 and though got marked the
document Ex.D.5-certified copy of the Will, but not
examined any of the attesting witnesses to the Will and
hence, the Trial Court not accepted the contention of the
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
HC-KAR
defendant and granted the ½ share in respect of the
properties left by the father.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants in the
second appeal would vehemently contend that both the
Courts have committed an error and failed to appreciate
the suit schedule properties are the self acquired property
of father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and also it is a
contention that failed to consider the document of Will
dated 16.01.1974 which obstructs inheritance of the
property. In the absence of a will, the property devolves
on the legal heirs in accordance with their personal law.
The counsel also vehemently content that the First
Appellate Court failed to consider the material that
property is a self acquired property of the father having
right to alienate and create any document and also the
fact that property was purchased on 13.06.1955 and he
executed the Will in favour of the appellant No.1 in respect
of item No.1. Both the Courts have committed an error in
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
HC-KAR
granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff and hence it
requires interference.
4. Having heard the appellants' counsel, counsel
not disputes with regard to the nature of the property in
respect of other items and only his contention is in respect
of item No.1 of the property that there was a Will. The
father had purchased the property in the year 1955 and he
also executed the Will in the year 1974. No doubt the
appellants/defendants got marked the document of Will as
Ex.D5 and though got marked the document of Will, but
not examined any of the attesting witnesses to prove the
Will. The Trial Court also having taken note of when the
document is got marked as Ex.D.5-Will, none of the
witness is examined before the Court and the same is
discussed in paragraph No.35 of the judgment that Will is
registered document and the same was registered on
16.01.1974, except producing the Will, defendant No.1
has not made any effort to prove the Ex.D.5-Will and the
Will has to be proved as per Section 63 of the Indian
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
HC-KAR
Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and also even extracted Section 63
and Section 68 of the Acts and detailed discussion was
made.
5. The counsel during the course of argument
admits that he did not examine any of the witnesses and
mandatory statutory provisions has not been complied and
when such being the case, he cannot contend that Will is
proved and no need to prove the Will since the document
is a registered document and the said contention cannot
be accepted and when such being the case, the dispute is
only in respect of the property which the father had
purchased and the fact that the father died as intestate
since though claims that the Will is executed and the same
has not been proved and even though relies upon the
document of Ex.D.5, and the same has not been proved.
Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any
substantive question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:22508
HC-KAR
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
