Karnataka High Court
Evugin Geroge Monis vs William Pratap Monis on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
RSA No. 635 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. 635 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
EVUGIN GEROGE MONIS
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
DOROTI MONIS,
D/O LATE GEORGE MONIS,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/A H.NO.3-77,
YENAGUDDE VILLAGE,
KATAPADI POST, UDUPI TALUK - 574118.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. WILLIAM PRATAP MONIS,
Digitally S/O LATE GEORGE MONIS,
signed by C AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
HONNUR SAB R/AT NO.13, LIFELINE, KOJAKULLI,
Location: HAMPANKATTE, KELARKALABETTU VILLAGE,
HIGH COURT UDUPI TALUK - 574118.
OF
KARNATAKA 2. JUDIS MONIS,
D/O LATE GEORGE MONIS,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT 120 NANCY AVE
DANUILLE, KY - 40422, USA.
3. MARY MONIS,
D/O LATE GEORGE MONIS,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
RSA No. 635 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/AT 239 KILBUNLANE
5, MONTRY STUDIO,
LONDON WEST - 10 YBS,
UNITED KINGDOM.
LOCAL ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3
C/O DAROTI MANIS,
D/O LATE GEORGE MONIS,
H.NO.3-77, YENAGUDDE VILLAGE,
KATAPADY POST, UDUPI TALUK - 574118.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O/DT 07.07.2022 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE D/W
SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021
PASSED IN RA.NO.17/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.444/2015
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, UDUPI.
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 appellant counsel and also the counsel
appearing for the respondents. 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 plaintiff by
seeking the relief of partition is that suit schedule property
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
HC-KAR
was purchased out of the compensation amount received
and accumulated funds in the name of the first defendant
since property belonging to the family was acquired.
Hence, the plaintiff is the joint owner of the suit property
and is entitled for a share in the family. The defendants
appeared and filed written statement contending that
property was purchased on 24.06.1991 for a sum of
Rs.1,90,000/- from portion of the compensation amount
and also by taking loan from a flower merchant and also
by the flower business carried on by her. As the 3rd
defendant looking after the 1st defendant and also the suit
schedule property, she executed a registered
Dharmasadhana Deed on 07.05.2012 in favour of 3rd
defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. RTC
has been mutated in her name and she is in khas
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence and particularly considering the
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
HC-KAR
admission on the part of the DW-1 and also the PW-1 and
also considering that property was purchased out of the
compensation amount of Rs.1,44,880/- and in case of the
remaining amount it is pleaded that by availing loan and
also out of the income generated from flower business
done by the defendant, the property was purchased.
Though it is contended that out of the compensation
amount, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to the plaintiff to
travel to Bahrain and said defence was taken but the same
is not proved. Hence, not accepted the case of the
defendants and granted the relief of 1/4th share each in
the 2/3rd portion of the suit schedule property and
defendant No.1 is also entitled for 1/3rd portion in the suit
schedule property.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, the first appeal is filed before the Appellate Court
and Appellate Court also while considering the first appeal
has taken note of the grounds urged in the appeal and
formulated the point whether the plaintiff has established
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
HC-KAR
that the suit schedule property was purchased out of the
compensation amount and whether the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court requires interference.
5. On re-appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence as well as the admission,
particularly in paragraph No.20 the Appellate Court comes
to the conclusion that DW-1 has deposed that they were in
a rented house for six months after receipt of the
compensation amount, defendant No.1 purchased the
property by availing loan. The aforesaid testimony of the
DW-1 infers that immediately after the receipt of the
compensation amount, they have purchased the property.
It has also taken note of the sale deed which is also
marked as Ex.P11 dated 25.06.1991 and also taken note
of the compensation amount of Rs.1,44,888/- which was
received in paragraph No.22 and considering all these
answers, the point No.1 to 3 were answered in the
affirmative. The contention of the defendants with regard
to Rs.30,000/- paid to the plaintiff, was not accepted and
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
HC-KAR
the same is discussed in paragraph No.24 and in the
absence of any proof to that extent, contention of the
appellant cannot be accepted and hence, confirmed the
judgment.
6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of
both the Courts, appeal is filed before this Court. The
main contention of the counsel for the appellant that both
the Courts fail to consider the material on record,
particularly not right in granting the share ignoring that
suit schedule property is not purchased out of the
compensation amount received by the 1st defendant.
Hence, this Court has to admit the substantial questions of
law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents contends that both the Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence, took note of the very specific
pleading of the plaintiff, who specifically pleaded that the
property was purchased out of the compensation amount
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
HC-KAR
and the defendants also have not denied the same and
also admitted that Rs.1,44,888/- was also received as
compensation. She had purchased the property for a sum
of Rs.1,90,000/- by availing loan and immediately after
the acquisition of the property, the family property was
not in dispute and the same has emerged during the
course of evidence and also the contention that Rs.30,000
was paid to the plaintiff out of compensation and the
share was already given was not substantiated and the
same is considered by the Trial Court and as well as First
Appellate Court and detailed discussion was made and also
within the scope of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil
Procedure also, the First Appellate Court discussed the
same in detail, particularly in paragraph No.24 with regard
to the said defence is concerned apart from that,
paragraph 20 also taken note of admission with regard to
the purchase of the property out of the compensation
amount and major portion of the compensation was also
utilised for the purchase of the property.
NC: 2025:KHC:46318
HC-KAR
8. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondents, I do not find
any error on the part of the Trial Court and Appellate
Court in considering both oral and documentary evidence,
and no perversity is found, and the contention of the
counsel appearing for the appellant in the second appeal
that both the Courts have not considered the evidence
available on record in the proper perspective, committed
an error in granting the share cannot be accepted. Both
question of fact and question of law have been considered
by both the Courts and no ground is made out to admit
the substantial question of law.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass
the following;
ORDER
i) The Regular Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
