Karnataka High Court
Smt G S Shanthamma vs G P Narasimhareddy on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
RSA No. 1552 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.1552 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. G.S. SHANTHAMMA,
W/O G.S. NARASIMHAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHOWDAREDDY T.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.P. NARASIMHAREDDY,
Digitally signed S/O G.B. PAPIREDDY,
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT T. GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
2. SMT. G.P. VENKATARAVANAMMA,
W/O Y. RAMAPPA,
D/O G.B. PAPIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT SALAMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
RSA No. 1552 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. G.P.SUJATHA,
W/O G.M. YARAPPAREDDY,
D/O G.B. PAPIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT GANDLACHINTA VILLAGE,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563159.
4. SMT. G.P. RENUKA,
W/O BYRAREDDY,
D/O G.B. PAPIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
MARAMMA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
12TH CROSS, VIRUPAKSHAPURA,
NEAR KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560097.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2021 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
SITTING AT CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2021
PASSED IN O.S.NO.41/2007 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI.
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. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession, it is contended that the plaintiff is the foster
daughter of Sri Yerravenkatappa and Smt. Chowdamma. The
schedule properties were the joint family properties of
Yerravenkatappa and G.B. Papireddy and in view of she is a
foster daughter, a Will is executed in her favour and she is
entitled for 50% of share in all the suit schedule properties,
including 1/3rd share in 21 properties mentioned in the Will,
which is registered on 10.12.1981, in her favour.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement denying that she is the foster daughter of Sri
Yerravenkatappa and Smt. Chowdamma. It is contended that
the Will is created for the purpose of knocking off the property.
It is also contended that the plaintiff is totally stranger to the
family. She has no right to seek for partition and at no point of
time she has sought for any partition and also she has not
acquired any right over the suit schedule properties. The
pleading itself establishes that she being not in the joint
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and
the plaintiff has wrongly incorporated the self-acquired
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
properties of G.B.Papireddy by making a false claim in respect
of the same and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the
parties, framed the issues and additional issues and allowed the
parties to lead evidence. The GPA holder of the plaintiff
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at
Exs.P.1 to 104 and also examined four witnesses as P.W.2 to
P.W.5. The defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got
marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 31 and also examined
four witnesses as D.W.2 to D.W.5. The Trial Court answered
issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in
the affirmative and additional issue No.3 in the negative and
comes to the conclusion that the suit itself is not maintainable
without seeking the relief of declaration as contended by the
defendants at paragraph No.12(a) of the written statement and
also the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is not
entitled to share in the properties including 1/3rd share in 21
properties mentioned in the Will. The Trial Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, particularly the Will, comes to the conclusion that
admittedly Smt.Chowdamma has got no children and as the
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
suit properties originally belongs to her husband, the said
properties after her death should go to the family members of
her husband. Hence, Ex.P.104 is of no use to the case of the
plaintiff. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on
the part of P.W.1, which is extracted in paragraph Nos.43, 44,
45, 47 and particularly in paragraph No.48, P.W.1 admits that
copy of the Will is handed over to her by Chowdamma and
hence comes to the conclusion that the very execution of the
Will is doubtful.
6. The Trial Court has also taken note of the evidence
of P.W.2 and his evidence goes against the very case of the
plaintiff in order to come to a conclusion that the document of
Will is not a genuine document. P.W.2 admitted that original
copy of the Will was in possession of the plaintiff and
Chowdamma was admitted in the hospital about two days prior
to her death. The said admission of P.W.2 is sufficient to hold
that Will is a got up document. The Trial Court also taken note
of that P.W.2 categorically admitted in the cross-examination
that one Papireddy was looking after Chowdamma and
Papireddy is none other than the brother of her husband and
comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not a foster
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
daughter of Chowdamma and she was not looking after
Chowdamma. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence
of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who supported the case of the plaintiff.
P.W.3 in his cross-examination admitted that about 4-5 days
prior to the death of Chowdamma, she was not feeling well and
the Will came into existence only about 20 days prior to her
death. The Trial Court taken note that it is the very specific
case of the defendants that the plaintiff is a stranger and she is
not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and all
the properties are not the joint family properties and some of
the properties are self-acquired properties of the father of
defendant No.1. The Trial Court considering both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, comes to the
conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that she is the foster
daughter of Sri Yerravenkatappa and Smt. Chowdamma and
there was a Will in her favour and Will is shrouded with
suspicious circumstances and hence dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court
having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence
available on record and keeping in view the grounds urged in
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial
Court committed an error in appreciating both oral and
documentary evidence and whether it requires any interference
of the Court. The First Appellate Court considering both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the
conclusion that the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is
sustainable and it is the specific defence of the defendants that
the plaintiff was not the foster daughter of Sri Yerravenkatappa
and Smt. Chowdamma. Further, the plaint is silent with regard
to the fact pertaining to the religious ceremony while taking the
plaintiff as foster daughter. For non-pleading of religious
ceremony, exact date, time, presence of witnesses, it cannot be
believed that the plaintiff is the foster daughter of Sri
Yerravenkatappa and Smt. Chowdamma. The First Appellate
Court also taken note of the age of the plaintiff as per SPA is
mentioned as 48 years in the year 2009, but in the cause title,
her age is mentioned as 41 years in the year 2007. In this
regard, the Trial Court has taken note about the malafide
intention in mentioning the same.
8. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the Will,
which is marked as Ex.P.2 and there is no explanation with
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
regard to difference in items mentioned in the plaint schedule
and schedule of the Will. According to the defendants, out of
21 properties, item Nos.1, 14 and 21 do not belong to the joint
family and item No.1 and 14 are not part of the plaint schedule
properties. Item No.21 of the Will is the Streedhana property of
defendant No.2, which belongs to the father. The First
Appellate Court also taken note of the circumstances under
which the document came into existence and as on the date of
the alleged Will, the age of Chowdamma was 80 years and the
plaintiff herself produced the medical certificate, which is
marked as Ex.D.16 in O.S.No.78/2000. The First Appellate
Court also taken note of that the Will has not seen the light of
the day since 26 years. As such, the said Will should be
considered as a concocted and forged document. Though the
Will was executed long back, the same was not relied upon at
any point of time. The First Appellate Court even taken note of
the admission on the part of P.W.1 that Chowdamma was
hospitalized for two days before her death and also taken note
of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the same will
not come to the aid of the plaintiff. Having re-assessed the
material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
plaintiff failed to prove her case and confirmed the judgment of
the Trial Court.
9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the Will is registered, which is marked
as Ex.P.2. On the face of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, it is
very clear that the Will was executed and the same is proved
and both the Courts comes to an erroneous conclusion that the
Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and hence this
Court has to frame the substantial question of law.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also on perusal of the material available on record, there is
no dispute with regard to the fact that one propositus is Tokala
Papireddy and he was having three sons Bayanna,
Yerravenkatappa and another son Ramanna died issueless and
the property devolves upon two sons of Thokala Papireddy. But
the very case of the plaintiff is that Yerravenkatappa was not
having any issues and hence the plaintiff was taken as a foster
daughter by Sri Yerravenkatappa and Smt. Chowdamma and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
his wife Chowdamma executed the Will. Having taken note of
oral and documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of
P.W.2, whose evidence goes against the plaintiff, P.W.2 says
that the plaintiff was not taking care of the health of
Chowdamma and the same was taken care by Papireddy.
Apart from that, Chowdamma was aged about 80 years and
she was not having good health and she was also admitted in
the hospital two days prior to her death. The First Appellate
Court taken note of other suspicious circumstances and comes
to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and
P.W.4 not inspires the confidence of the Court with regard to
the very execution of the Will and also taken note of the fact
that according to the plaintiff, the Will came into existence in
the year 1981 itself, but the same has not seen the light of the
day since 26 years. The very Will was not genuine and if she is
really a foster daughter of Chowdamma, then as soon as
Chowdamma died, the plaintiff would have made her effort to
mutate her name to the schedule properties based on the said
Will and the same is not done and the same was taken note of
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When the very
Will, which was propounded by the plaintiff is surrounded with
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47362
HC-KAR
suspicious circumstances, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that to prove that she is a foster daughter and also
that there was a Will and the same is valid, nothing is placed on
record to substantiate the same. Both the Courts taken note of
the material on record and comes to the conclusion that the
propounded Will was not proved. When such being the case,
the question of admitting the appeal and framing any
substantial question of law does not arise and hence I do not
find any ground to admit the appeal and any frame substantial
question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
