Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri Suresha on 30 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
RSA No. 1484 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1484 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS I.E.,
APPELLANTS No.1 TO 3 AND
RESPONDENT No.1
1. SMT. SHYLAJA KUMARI
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
W/O S M RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARSR/AT C/O SHAMAIAH
ANNAPURNA NILAYA
Digitally signed NEAR MES SCHOOL
by DEVIKA M
KAVERINAGARA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
2. PRABHAVATHI
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
W/O SHIVAHONNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A BEHIND NES OFFICE
2ND CROSS, ODDARA COLONY
MALAVALLI TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
RSA No. 1484 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
W/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A K H B BADAVANE
KANAKAPURA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. DEEPASHREE N S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SURESHA
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A 313, 5TH CROSS
SWARNASANDRA
MANDYA CITY
2. SRI LINGEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
DEAD BY LRS
2(A) SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
2(B) SRI C D SWAMY
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2(C) SRI C D RAJU
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
RSA No. 1484 of 2022
HC-KAR
2(D) SMT. SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH
W/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOTTE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI
CHENNAPATNA TALUK
RAMNAGARA DISTRICT
2(E) C L SUSHEELA
W/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
ABOVE DEFENDANT No.2(A),
2(B), 2(C) & 2(E) ARE R/AT
CHIKKEBOWREGODARA DODDI
VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2022
PASSED IN R.A NO.12/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
RSA No. 1484 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court that the plaintiff No.1 who is the
wife of Lingegowda and also three daughters have filed the
suit for the relief of partition and separate possession
claiming that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral
and joint family properties and also contend that they are
entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession.
Defendant No.2 who appeared before the Court has filed
the written statement contending that he is the bonafide
purchaser of the suit schedule property and he is in
possession and enjoyment of the said property and suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiffs
are not entitled for 1/5th share as claimed in the plaint.
Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
HC-KAR
3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings
of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties
to lead their evidence. PW1 who is the wife of Lingegowda
examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents
at Ex.P1 to P47. On the other hand, defendant No.2
examined as DW1 and two witnesses examined as DW2
and DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D22.
The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record comes to the
conclusion that the sale was made for the legal necessities
and in order to prove that remaining properties are
ancestral and joint families properties, no document is
placed on record and the Trial Court held that only with an
intention to make wrongful gain, in collusion with
defendant No.1, the suit is filed for the relief of partition
and separate possession and the Trial Court also taken
note of admission elicited from the mouth of witness -
PW1 who categorically admitted that property was sold for
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
HC-KAR
clearing the loan and the same is for legal necessity and
hence, dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in
R.A.No.12/2018. The First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record comes to the conclusion that husband of
plaintiff No.1 namely, late Lingegowda along with his son
i.e., defendant No.1 had availed the loan from State Bank
of Mysuru, Mandya. PW1 stated that loan has been repaid
by selling the tractor, but nothing is placed on record to
show that the loan was cleared by selling the tractor and
also taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of PW1
that her husband was suffering from ill-health and she has
spent money for his treatment. The Trial Court further
observed that before executing the sale deed in favour of
defendant No.2, defendant No.1 has executed an
agreement of sale dated 03.11.2005 in favour of
defendant No.2 The recitals of said sale agreement which
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
HC-KAR
is marked as Ex.D1 that the agreement is being executed
a sd fno.1 requires funds for the upbringing of his minor
children and for repayment of the mortgage loan at State
Bank of Mysuru, Mandya and it is stated that fund is
required for domestic needs and also executed the sale
deed dated 27.02.2006 in favour of defendant No.2
pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 03.11.2005 and
also take note of availing of loan and used of the sale
consideration for the treatment of PW1's husband and
detail discussion was made that sale was made for the
legal necessity and in order to prove that remaining
properties belongs to joint family, nothing is placed on
record and both the Courts have taken note of the
material on record. The First Appellate Court in paragraph
30 also made it clear that the sale was made in favour of
defendant No.2 by kartha of the family of plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 and no document is placed on record to
prove that the other property is a family property and
detail reasons are given on reassessment of material on
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
HC-KAR
record and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court not
committed any error and hence, confirmed the judgment
of the Trial Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed
an error in dismissing the suit. Further, the counsel would
vehemently contend that Ex.P1 to P47 demonstrate that
suit schedule properties stand in the name of the father of
the plaintiffs and the First Appellate Court held that the
plaintiffs have not prove the fact that the properties are
ancestral and joint family properties. The counsel also
would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court
also not considered the material on record particularly
Ex.D40 which is executed by defendant No.1 who is the
wife and children only. Hence, the counsel would
vehemently contend that this Court has to frame the
substantive questions of law admitting the appeal since
both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the
suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
HC-KAR
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and on perusal of the material on record, it is
not in dispute that earlier, availed the loan from the bank
and the kartha of the family i.e., the father had sold the
property along with his son i.e., defendant No.1 and same
is also for family necessity that is for clearance of bank
loan which was availed by the family members. There is
clear admission on the part of PW1 that in order to meet
the medical expenses of her husband, sale was made and
hence, the same is also for the family necessity. In respect
of other properties are concerned, nothing is placed on
record to show that the said properties belong to ancestral
and joint family. Both the Courts have taken note of
factual aspects as well as question of law. The answer
given by PW1 is very clear with regard to sale of the
property as well as availing of loan from the bank and to
clear the said loan, the property was sold. When such
admission is given, the sale is also for the legal necessity,
I do not find any error on the part of both the Courts in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23079
HC-KAR
dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs considering the material
on record and no perversity is found in consideration of
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by
both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit
the appeal and to frame the substantive questions of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
Order
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
