Karnataka High Court
Mr Chidananda vs Mr. T. S. Govindaraju on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
RSA No. 560 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN
1. MR CHIDANANDA
S/O SREERANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLI TALUK-572 228.
2. MRS.UMASHANKARA
S/O CHIDANANDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK-572 228.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S (BY SMT. E.R. PANKAJAMANI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND
KARNATAKA
MR. T.S GOVINDARAJU
S/O SREERANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK-572 228.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.S. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2019
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
RSA No. 560 of 2019
HC-KAR
PASSED IN RA.NO.54/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.08.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.71/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 04.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
1. This is defendants' second appeal.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule
property was the joint family property consisting of plaintiff,
defendant No.1 and their father Sreerangappa. They partitioned
the ancestral and joint family properties under the Panchayath
Parkitath dated 18.10.2006. Accordingly, the suit schedule
property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and since then,
he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter,
he improved the property by spending huge sums of money,
however, due to lack of knowledge, katha of the suit schedule
property was not changed in his name. After the death of
Sreerangappa and Rangalakshmamma i.e., the parents of the
plaintiff and defendant No.1, they got separated with their
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
HC-KAR
shares in the joint family property as per the Panchayat
Parikath-Ex.P1. Thereafter, defendant No.1, having no right,
title or interest in the schedule property, interfered with the
plaintiff's possession. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking
declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction.
3. Defendants contested the suit by written statement
denying all the averments in the plaint.
4. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings,
framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in
detail, dismissed the suit in respect of declaration of ownership
of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. However,
granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule
property.
5. On appeal by the defendants, the First Appellate Court,
upon re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Regular
Appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
HC-KAR
6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this
Court.
7. I have heard Smt.E.R.Pankajamani, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri M.S.Venugopal, learned counsel for the
respondent.
8. The primary contention of the defendants is that both the
Courts have failed to consider the documents produced by the
defendants i.e., the Gift Deed-Ex.D1 dated 21.10.2011
executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in
favour of defendant No.2 (son of defendant No.1) in respect of
suit schedule property. Further, the Trial Court also erred by
relying on the Panchayath Parikath - Ex.P1 dated 18.10.2006
which is an unregistered document. She also contended that,
the Trial Court has wrongly held that there was a prior partition
dated 20.07.1998 as per Ex.P5 between the plaintiff, defendant
No.1 and their parents. As such, both the Courts have erred in
granting permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule
property against the defendants. Accordingly, she prays to
allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
HC-KAR
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff contends that, the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have rightly held that Ex.P5-Panchayat
Parikath/Partition dated 20.07.1998 and the subsequent
Panchayat Parikath/Partition Deed dated 18.10.2006 - Ex.P1
were proved, since there is categorical admission by DW.1 and
DW.2 in respect of execution of those documents and the
signature of DW.2 is forthcoming in Ex.P1. According to him, as
per Ex.P1, there are in total 4 items and insofar as item No.4 of
the property i.e. the suit schedule property is concerned, there
is a recital in Ex.P1 that the parents of plaintiff and defendant
No.1 are having right to use the same till their life time and
after their demise, the plaintiff can use item No.4 i.e. the suit
schedule property. In such circumstance, the question of
execution of Gift Deed - Ex.D1 by their mother in favour of
defendant No.2 does not arise.
10. He further contended that the Panchayat Parikath-Ex.P1
finds signature of five witnesses including defendant Nos.1 and
2 and it is also elicited in the evidence of DW.1 that during the
life time of his father, the house situated at Tumkuru was gifted
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
HC-KAR
to his sister Nethravathi. In such circumstance, it is proved that
there was prior partition before Ex.P1-Panchayat Parikath
among the plaintiff, defendant and their parents. Hence,
though the Trial Court not declared the ownership of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, it has rightly
granted permanent injunction against the defendants by
restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's possession
over the suit schedule property by answering Issue No.1 that
the suit schedule property fallen to the share of the plaintiff
under Panchayat Parikath dated 18.10.2006. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions
of learned counsel for both the parties, so also to the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
12. As could be gathered from records, PWs.2 to 4, who are
stated to be the attesting witnesses to the Panchayat Parikath-
Ex.P1 stated that in their evidence that on 18.10.2006 the said
Parikath was executed between the plaintiff, defendant No.1
and their father Sreerangappa and the suit property has been
allotted to the share of the plaintiff after the demise of his
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
HC-KAR
parents. They have identified their signatures on Ex.P1.
Interestingly, DW.1 deposed that in the year 1998, the landed
properties of their family have been divided between himself,
defendant No.1 and his parents and the same was reduced into
writing as per Panchayat Parikath-Ex.P5. He also deposed that
in view of the said partition, his sister Nethravathi had been
gifted 7 Acres 13 guntas of land by virtue of the Gift Deed
executed by his father. D.W.1 has also admitted the Panchayat
Parikath dated 18.10.2006 as per Ex.P1 and identified his
signature and his mother's signature on Ex.P1. Further,
admitted that, as per the say of his father himself, his brother
was enjoying a godown and a vacant site separately and his
mother was residing along with the plaintiff.
13. On perusal of Ex.P1, there is a recital that the suit
schedule property i.e. item No.4 allotted to the share of parents
of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and after their demise, the
plaintiff will be owner of the said property. Ex.P1-Panchayath
Parikath was sent for handwriting expert and it was established
that defendant No.1 is the signatory to Ex.P1. In such
circumstance, in view of the recital in Ex.P1, the mother of the
NC: 2025:KHC:45781
HC-KAR
plaintiff had no absolute right to alienate the said property by
way of gift in favour of defendant No.2. As such, the Trial Court
has rightly held that the Gift Deed - Ex.D1 is not proved as per
law. In such circumstance, the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have rightly held that Ex.P1 is proved and in
view of the interference of the defendants with the peaceful
possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, rightly
granted injunction against the defendants. Hence, in my view,
there is absolutely no question of law, much less substantial
question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
