Karnataka High Court
Smt Parvathamma vs Smt Lakshmidevamma on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
RSA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1556 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O VENAKTAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDENTOF SUBASH ROAD
SRINIVASPURA TOWN
KOLAR-563 135.
2. SRI. KADIRA REDDY
S/OAL TE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDENT OF RAMAKRISHNA ROAD
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR-563 135.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (WRONGLY SHOWN AS KADRI REDDY
IN THE SUIT AND AS KADIREDDY IN RA)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA @ SAKAMMA
W/O KEMPARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDENT OF TANK BUDN ROAD
CHINTAMANI TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN: 563125
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
RSA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O K.R. VENKATAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O K.R. VENKATAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDENT OF KABIR ROAD
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR - 563 125.
3. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
D/O K.R. NARSIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK
PIN: 563 125
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.47/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR (ITINERATING AT
SRINVASAPURA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.75/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SRINIVASPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
RSA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of both the Courts.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession before
the Trial Court in O.S.No.75/2012 is that suit schedule
properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the
plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled for a
share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.
4. The defendants appeared and took the specific
defence in the written statement that suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings,
since the dispute is with regard to relationship between the
parties as well as nature of the properties, allowed the parties
to lead evidence before the Court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
have examined first plaintiff as P.W.1 and also examined one
witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to
P13. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant
No.3 as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to
D24 and no other witnesses have been examined.
6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record and also the
evidence of P.W.2 accepted the case of plaintiffs, in coming to
the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 has remained
unchallenged with the relationship of plaintiffs with the
defendants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is relevant fact to
form an opinion with respect to relationship of the plaintiffs
with the defendants and also taken note of the admission on
the part of D.W.1 that his father Sri Erappa had performed the
marriage of the plaintiffs and also taken note of the conduct of
said Erappa which shows that the plaintiffs are having
relationship with Sri Erappa as daughters and comes to the
conclusion that plaintiffs are the children of Sri Erappa and
sisters of the defendants and comes to the conclusion that
relationship is established. With regard to the nature of the
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
properties is concerned, there is no serious dispute between
the parties and additional issue was also considered in
paragraph No.34 with regard to non-joiner of necessary parties
and also taken note that plaintiffs themselves have admitted
that their father had sold the property for legal necessities i.e.
Sy.No.16/3 to an extent of 3.36 acres. Hence, comes to the
conclusion that K.M. Narayanaswamy is not a necessary party
to the suit. The Trial Court also considered issue Nos.2 and 3
together and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and
defendants are entitled for 1/14th share each out of the half
share which had fallen to the share of their father. The
defendant No.3 being the son, he is entitled for his independent
half share and 1/14th share in the suit schedule properties.
Therefore, defendant No.3 is entitled for 4/7th share in the suit
schedule properties, remaining plaintiffs and defendants are
entitled for 1/14th share and granted the relief of partition and
separate possession.
7. The same is challenged before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.47/2020. The First Appellate Court also having
considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal,
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
formulated the points whether the appellants/defendants have
made out the grounds that judgment and decree of the Trial
Court is perverse and the same requires to be set aside and
considering both oral and documentary evidence and on re-
appreciation comes to the conclusion that the
appellants/defendants have not substantiated their contention
and Trial Court has not committed any error and taken note of
evidence of P.W.2 with regard to proving of relationship is
concerned and in detail discussed in paragraph No.22 and
comes to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 remains
unchallenged in respect of the relationship of the plaintiffs and
defendants and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second
appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellants before this Court is that evidence of P.W.2 is
not in consonance with Section 50 of the Evidence Act and
there is no special means of knowledge with regard to the
relationship between the parties and both the Courts ought not
to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 as to the relationship
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
is concerned. The counsel also vehemently contend that when
the partition in respect of the suit schedule properties are
effected in terms of the decree of the Court in R.A.Nos.90/1997
and 118/2004 dated 08.12.2004 and when the suit claim is on
the pleading that the same is ancestral property, is not the suit
hit by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
both the Courts failed to take note of the said fact into
consideration.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, no
doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to
notice of this Court that the relationship of the parties is
disputed, the plaintiffs in order to prove the case, relied upon
document Ex.P1-Genealogical tree as well as evidence of P.W.2
and P.W.2. in the affidavit categorically stated with regard to
relationship between the plaintiffs as well as defendants that
they are the brothers and sisters. The counsel also vehemently
contend that the first line of admission of P.W.2 is that he is not
aware of the contents of the affidavit. Inspite of it, the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the evidence of
P.W.2 on the ground that the evidence of P.W.2 has remained
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
unchallenged. Having perused the reasoning of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court, both the Courts comes to the
conclusion that the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to
relationship is unchallenged and the counsel appearing for the
appellants also brought to notice of this Court the very
evidence of P.W.2 during the course of his argument and
having taken note of the same in paragraph No.4, it is stated
by P.W.2 that plaintiffs are own sisters of defendant No.3 and
remaining defendants are own brothers of plaintiffs because all
of them are children of same parents and in the cross-
examination, no doubt, it is elicited that not aware of the chief
evidence and also with regard to the schedule properties
concerned, but specifically pleaded and deposed that he knows
the relationship between defendant No.3-Kadiri Reddy and his
sisters and he voluntarily deposed and also answer is elicited
that he is not aware of the exact date of their birth. He also
categorically deposed that he is aged about 69 years and the
resident of the same village and when Lakshmidevamana was
born, he was aged about 30 years and no panchayath was held.
But having perused this evidence also, nothing is elicited
disputing the relationship between the plaintiffs and
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
defendants, particularly the defendant No.3-Kadiri Reddy and
case of the plaintiffs is also that he is the brother. When such
material is considered by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court and the very contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants that evidence of P.W.2 suffers from Section
50 of the Evidence Act cannot be accepted and he is a senior
member of the Village and he also categorically deposed that
he is aged about 69 years and even not disputed that he was
not the senior member of the village and with regard to the
relationship is also concerned, no specific denial was made by
the defendants during the course of cross-examination of
P.W.2. When such being the case, the very contention of
learned counsel that evidence of P.W.2 is not in consonance
with Section 50 cannot be accepted.
10. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants also brought to notice of this Court the discussion
made in paragraph Nos.25 to 28 with regard to Section 50 of
the Indian Evidence Act in the judgment in the case of BANT
SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. NIRANJAN SINGH (DEAD) BY
L.Rs AND ANOTHER) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 75 and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
having considered the discussion made in paragraph Nos.25
and 26, in detail discussion was made with regard to Section 50
of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly with regard to special
means of knowledge with regard to the relationship between
the parties. Having perused the evidence of P.W.2, he speaks
about the relationship between the parties and also about the
fact that he is a senior most person in the village and he was
aged about 69 years and also resident of the same village and
conduct the person must fulfill the essential conditions of
Section 50 and it must be proved in the manner known to law
relating to proof is concerned. When his evidence is clear and
he specifically pleaded with regard to the relationship between
the parties is concerned and the very contention that he was
not having special means of knowledge cannot be accepted.
Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal
and frame any substantial question of law and both the Courts
have taken note of question of fact and question of law while
considering the issue between the parties, particularly with
regard to relationship is concerned. The learned counsel for the
appellants mainly disputes the relationship of the parties is
concerned and nature of the properties is not seriously
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47281
HC-KAR
disputed. When fact finding is given by both the Trial Court with
regard to the relationship accepting the evidence of P.W.2, I do
not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
