Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narasimhaiah vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
RSA No. 612 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.612 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT BALAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK &
DISTRICT-561211
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
by DEVIKA M W/O B H NANJUNDAPPA,
Location: HIGH D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
KARNATAKA R/AT BALAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 561211
2. SMT. SAKAMMA @ PUTTANARASAMMA
W/O NARAYANA,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT No.3944,
2ND CROSS, B BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560021
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
RSA No. 612 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
4. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PARTIES AT SL.NOS.3 & 4 ARE
R/AT BALAKUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-561211
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2023.
PASSED IN R.A. NO.34/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
RSA No. 612 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that
the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family
properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and they
are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The
defendants took the defence that there was a palupatti dated
10.01.2004 and defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment
of the properties in terms of the said palupatti. The Trial Court
having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the
Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order
to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 examined as
PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P67. On the
other hand, defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and got
marked the documents as Ex.D1 to D23. The Trial Court having
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
HC-KAR
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record comes to the conclusion that even if there is any
palupatti, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs since they
are not parties to the said palupatti. Based on that palupatti,
the defendants cannot claim their possession over the suit
schedule properties and there was no any partition among the
children of Chinnappa. Hence, the granted the relief of partition
of 1/6th share each in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the
defendants.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,
an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.34/2021. The First Appellate
Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal,
formulated the Point that whether the judgment of the Trial
Court requires interference of the Court. The First Appellate
Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record taken note of the fact the counsel for
cross appellant has submitted that some properties were
allotted to the share of sons of Gorlappa and some properties
were allotted to the share of Narasimhaiah. They have
produced the RTC pertaining to the property and either
Gorlappa or his sons have been made as parties before the
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
HC-KAR
Trial Court. Only in respect of the properties allotted to the
Narasimhaiah, his sisters have filed the suit claiming share in
the properties. Now, defendant No.2 who is the cross appellant
placed his argument that the properties allotted to Gorlappa is
also the joint family properties. In the absence of children of
Gorlappa either in this appeal or before the Trial Court, it
cannot be held that there is discrimination in the allotment of
share between the parties. The First Appellate Court also taken
note of the fact that when there was no partition between the
plaintiffs and defendants, do not find any error on the part of
the Trial Court in appreciating the same thus, confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed
before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not
considered the material on record in a proper perspective. The
counsel also contend that when there was a palupatti in writing
dated 10.01.2004 which was earlier to amendment of provision
of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and mutation also
made on the basis of the said palupatti, the same was not
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
HC-KAR
taken note by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit
the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also on perusal of the material on record, it
discloses that the specific case of the plaintiffs before the Trial
Court that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and
joint family properties and there was no any partition and no
share was given to them. The Trial Court also considered the
very defence taken by defendant No.4 that he is in possession
of the suit schedule property based on the palupatti and in the
said palupatti, the plaintiffs are not the parties to the said
division. When such being the case, excluding the plaintiffs,
there cannot be any partition when they are having right over
the suit schedule property. Hence, I do not find any error in
the findings of both the Courts since both the Courts have
properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share each along with defendant
Nos.1 to 4 having taken note of the factual aspects and
question of law. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the
NC: 2025:KHC:46684
HC-KAR
appeal and frame substantive question of law invoking Section
100 of CPC.
7. In view of he discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
