Karnataka High Court
Smt Eramma vs Smt Sanjeevamma on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
RSA No. 1567 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ERAMMA,
D/O LATE BHADRAIAH,
W/O DODDARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. SMT. CHIKKAMMA,
D/O LATE BHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
BOTH 1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT NO. 320, 9th CROSS,
LEGGERE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560058.
3. SMT RANGAMMA,
S/O LATE BHADRAIAH,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
signed by C R/AT VOKKODI VILLAGE,
HONNUR BELLAVI HOBLI,
SAB TUMAKURU TALUK 572 107
Location: ...APPELLANTS
HIGH COURT (BY SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SMT SANJEEVAMMA,
D/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH,
W/O SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
2. SMT. NARASAMMA,
D/O LATE ERANNA,
D/O IN LAW OF LATE VERRABADRAIAH,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
RSA No. 1567 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE ERANNA
D/O IN LAW OF LATE VEERABADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ALL THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3
ARE R/AT ULICHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CN DURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 129.
4. SMT. REVAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
5. SMT. RANGAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
6. SMT. PADMAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
7. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
8. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL THE RESPONDENTS FROM
NO.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT VOKKODI VILLAGE,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 107.
9. SMT RUDRAMMA,
D/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH,
W/O CHIKKAREVANNA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
RSA No. 1567 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/AT BIDADI VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
10. SRI SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
11. SMT. NARASAMMA,
D/O LATE ERANNA,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
12. SMT. BHARATHI,
S/O LATE ERANNA,
W/O CHANDRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 10 TO 12
ARE R/AT ULICHIKKANAHALLI,
C N DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 129.
13. SMT. KALAVATHI,
D/O LATE ERANNA,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI,
VILALGE, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
14. SMT. PUTTASWAMY,
W/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
R/AT VOKKODI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
DISTRICT 572 129.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
RSA No. 1567 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2022
PASSED IN RA.No.22/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED IN OS No.744/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the appellants counsel and the matter is listed
for admission. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding of the Trial Court.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court in seeking the relief of partition and
separate possession is that suit schedule property was
originally belonged to one Eranna. The said Eranna had
four sons namely Veerabhadraiah, Rudraiah, Mallaiah and
Bhadraiah. The first son of Veerabhadraiah died leaving
behind his legal representatives i.e. plaintiffs No.1 to 9.
The 2nd son Rudraiah died leaving behind his two
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
HC-KAR
daughters Chikkamma and Puttathayamma. The 3rd son
Mallaiah died unmarried. The 4th son Bhadraiah died
leaving behind his wife, the defendant before the Trial
Court. The plaintiffs Chikkamma, Puttathayamma, the
daughter of 2nd son Rudraiah and the plaintiffs were in
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs and defendants have given 12
guntas of land in Survey No.78/1A out of 1 acre 03 guntas
to Rudraiah's daughter Chikkamma and Puttathyamma
towards their share. There remains 31 guntas, which is
the suit schedule Item No.1. The said Chikkamma and
Puttathayamma were given no share in the mud roofed
house, which is suit item No.2. The plaintiffs and
defendants constitute a Hindu undivided family and the
suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. When the
demand was made for the partition, defendants did not
agree for the partition and hence, the plaintiffs filed the
suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
HC-KAR
3. The defendants took the specific defence in
their written statement that a partition had already taken
place between his brothers, defendants and father of
defendants No.1 to 3 respectively and hence, not entitled
for the partition as contended.
4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence as well as the pleadings of the
parties, comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are entitled
to a share in the remaining properties to the extent of 31
guntas which is described in the schedule and share is
granted in respect of both the items No.1 and 2 in coming
to the conclusion that there was a partition and only 12
guntas of property was given to the legal heirs of the
second son, Rudaiah's and in respect of the remaining
properties, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for
the share in the suit schedule property. It even took note
of the admission on the part of DW-2 during the course of
evidence and decreed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, an appeal is filed and the Appellate Court having
reassessed both the oral and documentary evidence in
considering the grounds raised in the appeal, answered
point No.2 partly affirmative as far as Item No.2 is
concerned and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court
that suit filed by the plaintiffs with respect to Item No.1 is
decreed and in respect of Item No.2 is concerned, the
same was dismissed. And held that plaintiffs are entitled
to half share in the suit Item No.1 of the property i.e. 31
guntas of land.
6. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent
findings, the present second appeal is filed. Counsel
appearing for the appellants would submit that there is no
dispute with regard to the relationship between the
parties. However, both the Courts committed an error in
granting a decree in respect of Item No.1 and would
contend that when the First Appellate Court came to the
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
HC-KAR
conclusion that already 12 guntas was given to the share
of daughter of Rudraiah and they have sold the said
property to the third persons, that itself is a material
evidence to show that already there was a partition among
the family members. Even when an application is filed
under Order 41 rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure to
produce the evidence which is absolutely necessary, but
the same is also not considered and dismissed the same.
Further, the counsel would submit that when the
document was also placed before the Court, that is, xerox
copy of agreement of sale dated 26.01.1984, which clearly
shows the earlier partition and there is no existence of
joint family. The same has not been considered and hence,
this court has to admit and frame the substantial
questions of law.
7. Having heard the appellants counsel and also
the reasoning given by the Trial Court and it is also the
specific case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court also
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
HC-KAR
when seeking the relief of partition that suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties and both
plaintiffs and defendants constitute an undivided joint
family. It is also contend that compromise decree obtained
in O.S. No.624/2012 is not binding on the plaintiffs' share
since no share was given to the plaintiffs and no doubt it is
pleaded by the defendants also that already there was a
partition and no existence of joint family. But in order to
substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record. The
only contention of the appellants counsel is that 12 guntas
of land was given to the legal heirs of Rudraiah, that itself
clearly discloses that already there was a partition and
merely because one of the sons of original propositus has
taken a share and the same is given to the legal heirs of
Rudraiah unless any material is substantiated before the
Court that there was already a partition and the same
cannot be accepted.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46320
HC-KAR
8. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the
Trial Court and Appellate Court in appreciating both oral
and documentary evidence and held that no material is
placed to substantiate the contentions that there was
already a partition and in the absence of parties had acted
upon in terms of the said earlier partition as contended by
the appellants, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame any substantial question of law to invoke Section
100 of Code of Civil Procedure.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following;
ORDER
i) The Regular Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
CHS
