Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarojamma vs Sri. Hanumanthappa on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
RSA No. 2125 of 2023
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. 2125 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAROJAMMA,
W/O LATE GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O KAKKARAGOLLA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577589.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA.
S/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
R/O 737/2, BETHUR ROAD,
KORAMARA COLONY,
Digitally DAVANAGERE 577001.
signed by C
HONNUR
SAB 2. SMT DODDA THIMMAMMA.
Location: D/O LATE DODDA HANMANTHAPPA.
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OF R/O KAKKARAGOLLA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA DAVANAGERE - 577589.
3. SMT SANNA THIMMAMMA,
D/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA,
W/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT D NO 704/A, IMAM NAGAR,
NEAR VENKATSHWARA TEMPLE,
KORAMARA COLONY, BETHUR ROAD,
IMAM NAGAR, DAVANAGERE 577001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
RSA No. 2125 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SMT SHANTHAMMA,
D/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA,
W/O KARIBASAPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O 513/1, BASAVESHWARA SCHOOL ROAD,
NEAR SHAKTHI GAS, MOUNESHWARA EXTENSION,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577004.
5. SMT PARVATHAMMA,
D/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA,
W/O SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O 9TH WARD, 3RD CROSS
BEHIND THIRUMALESHWARA TEMPLE,
ASHOKA ROAD, HIRIYUR 572103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGALINGAPPA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R5,
R2 - SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED IN
RA NO.50/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.190/2020 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
DAVANAGERE.
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. This appeal is listed for
admission.
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
2. The appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding. The present appellant is the plaintiff and as
against the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court in
dismissal of the suit in respect of Item Nos.2, 4 and 5, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court is that, the plaintiff is entitled to
1/6th share in the suit schedule properties since the
properties belong to the joint family. In total, the suit is
filed for 5 items of the suit schedule properties. It is
contended that during the lifetime of the propositus,
Doddahanumanthappa, he had constituted a joint family
along with his sons and daughters. He owned joint family
properties which are the suit schedule properties.
Doddahanumanthappa succeeded to the suit schedule
properties from his ancestors and continued enjoying
these properties along with his sons and daughters.
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
Therefore, the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties.
4. On 21.06.2001, Doddahanumanthappa died
intestate. His wife Durgamma also died on 03.08.2014,
leaving behind their sons and daughters as their legal
heirs and successors to the suit schedule properties.
Thereafter, the sons and daughters continued to enjoy the
suit schedule properties jointly. On 28.08.2020, the
husband of the plaintiff Gopalappa died leaving behind the
plaintiff as his only legal heir. Hence, while the plaintiff
and defendants remain in joint possession of the suit
schedule properties, the defendants have begun to
mismanage the properties and have failed to partition the
same despite the demand of the plaintiff. The plaintiff,
being a widow, has demanded that her 1/6th share of the
properties out of the suit schedule properties be divided
and hand over. However, the defendants neglected her
and did not come forward to give any share.
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant
No.1 admitted the plaint paragraph Nos.2 and 3 but,
denied the other averments and admitted the relationship
between the parties and contends that the suit is not
properly valued and also contends that Item Nos.1 and 3
of the suit schedule properties are the only properties
available for division as they were left behind by
Doddahanumanthappa and the Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 are
the exclusive properties of the defendants and the same
are acquired by the defendants out of their own labour and
sweat.
6. Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was a
land belonging to one Koramara Thimmappa, which
Durugamma had purchased on 23.12.1985 under the
registered sale deed. She also executed a gift deed, gifting
the property in favour of defendant No.1 and delivered the
possession. Since then, defendant No.1 has been in
possession of the property.
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
7. Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties
originally belonged to one Sri Koramara Parasappa.
Defendant No.5, Parvathamma, purchased it on
27.07.2000 for valuable consideration and defendant No.5
was put in possession of Item No.4.
8. Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties is the
exclusive and absolute property of defendant No.3.
Defendant No.3 and her husband had purchased it in the
year 1993. Those are the exclusive properties of
defendants and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief of partition in respect of those properties are
concerned.
9. Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, particularly taking note of the
admission on the part of PW-1 in cross-examination
regarding the avocation of defendants and also their
income, the Court also categorically noted that no
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
documents were produced before the Court to show that
suit properties were purchased out of the joint family
funds. It further took note of the evidence in Ex.P1 to P4,
which shows that only Item Nos.1 and Item No.3 are the
joint family properties, and the other properties are the
defendants individual properties. The plaintiff failed to
discharge the burden by production of cogent and
satisfactory evidence to show that item Nos.2, 4 and 5 of
the suit schedule properties are also joint family
properties. Hence, dismissed the suit in respect of item
Nos.2, 4 and 5, and granted the relief only in respect of
item Nos.1 and 3.
10. The said judgment and decree are challenged
before the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff, contending
that the very dismissal of the suit in respect of item Nos.2,
4 and 5 in coming to the conclusion that those properties
are individual properties of defendants Nos.1, 4 and 5.
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
11. The First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to
the conclusion that the burden was on the plaintiff to
prove that Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 are joint family properties.
The Court also came to the conclusion that all these
properties stand in their respective individual names as
evidenced by the sale deeds. Defendant No.1 had also
executed a gift deed in respect of item No.2 in the name
of her son. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not proved that
the said properties were also purchased out of the joint
family income. Consequently, the Court confirmed the
judgment in coming to the conclusion that, in the absence
of any material to show that out of joint family income
only, properties were purchased to confirm the same.
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently contends that both courts committed an error,
particularly in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5. He would
further contend that the witnesses also admitted that
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
those properties were purchased during the lifetime of
Doddahanumanthappa. He argues that since the mother
did not have any independent income to purchase the
property, the Courts ought to have granted relief in
respect of at least item No.2. He submits that the fact
that Item Nos.4 and 5 were also purchased in their
individual names, the same was not considered, by the
Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit and frame
substantial questions of law.
13. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondents would vehemently contends that admittedly
the item Nos.1 and 3 properties are the joint family
properties and nothing is placed on record that item Nos.1
and 3 properties were getting the income. And apart from
that, PW-1 categorically admitted that nothing is placed on
record to show that out of the joint family nucleus, those
properties are purchased. The same has been considered
by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
no perversity is found in the said finding. Hence, it does
not require any reconsideration.
14. Having heard the appellant counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no dispute
that item Nos.1 and No.3 are the joint family properties, a
fact which the defendants also not disputed and admitted
the same. However, regarding item Nos.2, 4 and 5, which
stand in the name of the mother and other family
members, it is their specific case that these were
purchased out of their own earnings.
15. The Trial Court has also taken note of the
admission on the part of PW-1 during the course of cross-
examination, wherein he categorically admitted that,
defendant No.4 was working in Agriculture department
and defendant No.1 was working in a Bank and also
running a cloth and cycle business. PW-1 further
unequivocally admitted that Kenchappa, Kariyappa and
Suresh were doing good work in their respective
departments and they have earned good money. Apart
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
from that, unequivocal admission was given that no
documents are produced before the Court to show that
suit properties are purchased out of the joint family funds.
When such admission is given, the Trial Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that in the absence of any material
to show that other items of the properties are purchased
out of the joint family funds, the question of granting any
relief in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5 does not arise. The
Trial Court also discussed the evidence of PW-1 in
Paragraph Nos.22, 23, and 24 and took note of the
documents that stand in their names.
16. Apart from that, the Court has also taken note
of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, under which
property standing in the name of a woman becomes her
absolute property. The First Appellate Court has also taken
note of the burden of proof that lies on the plaintiff to
prove the same and the same has been discussed in
Paragraph No. 40. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to
establish the existence of some joint family property
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
capable of being the nucleus from which new property or
assets could have been acquired and the same is not
substantiated, and though contended that the family
constitutes a joint family, nothing was placed on record to
prove the same. Hence, the Court took note of the
document Ex.D3 and the other documents which stand in
the individual names.
17. Item No.4 was jointly purchased by defendant
No.3 and her husband Kenchappa. DW-2 stated in her
evidence that her husband was working at Ganesh Mill,
and after closure of the said Mill, they received a
compensation amount and from that amount only they
purchased the property i.e. item No. 4. The Court has also
taken note that item No.2 was purchased by the wife of
the propositus, Smt. Durgamma, and item No.4 was
purchased by defendant No.3, Sanna Thimmamma, and
her husband.
18. Item No.5 was purchased by defendant No.5,
Parvathamma. The plaintiff has to establish that out of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
the income of item Nos.1 and 3 only, properties are
purchased and the same has not been substantiated.
Hence, both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court
have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence
and considering the documents and oral evidence, rightly
came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not
substantiated the claim in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5,
as nothing is placed on record to show that the property
was purchased only using funds out of joint nucleus item
Nos.1 and 3 in the name of other members of the family.
19. The counsel made an attempt to convince this
Court that at the time of the purchase of the property,
Doddahanumanthappa was alive, and there is an
admission to that effect. However, the mere admission
that Doddahanumanthappa was alive at the time of the
purchase of the property cannot be a ground to conclude
that only Doddahanumanthappa had purchased those
items of properties. Hence, I do not find any ground to
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46322
HC-KAR
admit this appeal and to frame the substantial questions of
law.
20. 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
...
