Karnataka High Court
Sri Mukhesh vs Smt. Kamalamma on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
RSA No. 496 of 2025
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.496 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUKHESH
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT DYAPENAHALLI VILLAGE
SITAKALLU POST
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 140.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
HOUSE NO.15, 2ND CROSS,
WARD NO.14, BAGALAKUNTE
NEAR BONE MILL
SIDDENAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 073.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
(BY SRI. H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SMT.KAMALAMMA
W/O ERANNA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O MAVINAKUNTE VILLAGE
HULUKUNTE POST
THYMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
RSA No. 496 of 2025
HC-KAR
SMT. RAMAKKA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
2. SRI. MANJANNA
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132.
SRI. RAMAIAH
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
3. SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. KUM. KOKILA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NOS.3 AND 4 ARE
R/O DYAPENAHALLI VILLAGE
SITAKALLU POST
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 104.
5. SMT. KENCHAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
6. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE
R/O DYAPENAHALLI VILLAGE
SITAKALLU POST
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572104.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
RSA No. 496 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. SRI. RAMAMURTHY
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ KEMPANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SRI. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAMALLAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
8. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
9. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
W/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT KALENAHALLI SITAKAL POST
ORDIGERE HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 104.
10. SRI. RAJU
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
11. SMT. RADHAMMA,
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
W/O MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT MATAGUNDANAHALLI
PATHAGANAHALLI POST
KOLLALA HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 140.
12. SRI. RADHAVENDRA
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
13. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
RSA No. 496 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESPONENT NOS.7, 8, 10, 12 AND 13 ARE
R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE
SIDDAPURA POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
14. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O ERANNA
D/O LATE RAMAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT KAMANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE
DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI
KOLIGERE POST
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203.
15. SMT. PUTTARAMAKKA
W/O SRIRANGAPPA
D/O LATE RAMAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE
SIDDAPURA POST
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
16. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O JAYANNA
D/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT YYALACHAGERE VILLAGE
KOLLALA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTICT-572 140.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.138/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.198/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
RSA No. 496 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court is that plaintiff and defendants have constituted
a Hindu Joint Family and suit schedule properties are their joint
family properties and also contend that both of them are in
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Hence, entitled for a share over the suit schedule properties.
4. The defendant No.3, who filed the written
statement contended that item No.1 of the suit schedule
properties was the exclusive property of Ramaiah and he has
bequeathed the same to defendant No.3 under the Will Deed
dated 10.08.2005.
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that suit
schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties. The Trial Court also answered issue No.4 as
'negative', since the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 are contrary to
each other and in detail discussed the same while considering
issue No.4, since D.W.1, the legatee during his cross-
examination stated that after the death of his grand-father
Ramaiah, he has opened a steel trunk in his house at
Dypenahalli Village and at that time, he saw a Will and other
papers, then only he came to know that his grand-father has
executed a Will in his favour. The Trial Court also taken note of
contrary evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and defendant No.3 was
also very much present at the time of getting the document
executed and the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.14 and
15 and then comes to the conclusion that the evidence of
D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the recitals of Ex.D3 are very much
contradictory. Hence, not accepted the case of defendants with
regard to the Will is concerned and granted the relief of 1/7th
share in the share of her father in the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
HC-KAR
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.138/2024. The First Appellate Court also
having reassessed the material available on record in keeping
the contentions urged in the appeal, formulated the points
whether the Trial Court committed an error in holding that suit
schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties,
whether the Trial Court has erred in holding that defendant
No.3 has failed to prove that item No.1 of suit schedule
property was the exclusive property of Ramaiah and he has
bequeathed the same to the defendant No.3 under Will dated
10.08.2005, whether the Trial Court has erred in holding that
plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share in the share of her father
Ramaiah in the suit schedule property and whether it requires
interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 as 'negative' that the Trial
Court has not committed any error. However, answered point
No.3 'partly in the affirmative' and modified the share of parties
in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for a share
in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2,
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
HC-KAR
4 and 5 are entitled to 1/24th share each in the plaint schedule
properties and so also, the defendant Nos.8 and 9 are entitled
for 4/24th share each and judgment and decree of the Trial
Court is modified only in respect of the proportionate share is
concerned. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the present
second appeal is filed before this Court by defendant No.3.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have
committed an error in not properly appreciating the document
of Will and failed to take note of the very document of Ex.D3
and the same has been proved in terms of Section 68 of Indian
Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the
evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 not inspires the confidence of the
Court and their evidence is contrary to each other and the very
approach of both the Courts is erroneous and perverse.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also on perusal of the material available on record, the main
argument of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to
the Will is that there was a Will in favour of the appellant in
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
HC-KAR
respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. In order to
prove the Will also, though examined the witnesses,
particularly D.W.1 to D.W.3, the evidence of these witnesses
were taken note of by the Trial Court while answering issue
No.4 in paragraph Nos.13 to 15 and found contrary evidence of
each of the witnesses and comes to the conclusion that the Will
propounded by the appellant is shrouded with suspicious
circumstances. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed
the material available on record, particularly with regard to the
Will is concerned in paragraph Nos.31 and 32 even extracted
the evidence of D.W.2 and with regard to the suspicious
circumstances is concerned, discussed in paragraph No.33 and
so also in paragraph No.34 observed that D.W.1 states that he
is not aware of the witnesses to the Will, whereas D.W.2 states
that he was the tenant in the house of defendant No.3 for 2-3
years. Apart from that also taken note of the fact that the
evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 is contrary to each other with
regard to the Will is concerned and the same is also discussed
in paragraph No.35 and material contradictions are also taken
note of by the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any
error on the part of both the Trial Court as well as the First
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46737
HC-KAR
Appellate Court with regard to the Will is concerned which is
marked as Ex.D3 and when the Will is shrouded with suspicious
circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the finding of
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, question of
admitting the second appeal and framing any substantial
question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise.
Both question of law and facts are considered judiciously.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
