Karnataka High Court
Sunandamma vs A.B. Byregowda on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SUNANDAMMA
D/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
HOSUE HOLD WORK,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE:577 168.
2. A B SHANKARAPPA
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
PANKAJA S
NAGENAHALLI POST,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KADUR TALUK,
KARNATAKA CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
3. A B CHANDRAPPA
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
PIN CODE:577 168.
4. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT GUNASAGARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
5. SMT SANNAMMA
W/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
6. SMT CHANDRAMMA
W/O BOMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
7. SMT PARVATHAMMA
W/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH H.B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
A.B. BYREGOWDA
S/O BASVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
SAKHARYAPATNA HOBLI,
NAGENAHALLI POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 168.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED - ABSENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN
RA NO.78/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
KADUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
ORDER DATED 30.10.2015 PASSED IN FDP NO.09/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KADUR.
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.54 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
RSA No. 1635 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff - Sunandamma in OS.No.275/2000 along
with respondents in FDP.No.9/2007 are before this Court in this
regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree
dated 01.07.2019 passed in R.A.No.78/2015.
2. Sunandamma has filed the suit for partition and separate
possession against the defendants - A.B.Byregowda,
A.B.Shankarappa and A.B.Chandrappa (i.e., the respondent,
appellant Nos.2 and 3 in this appeal respectively) by claiming
1/4th share and mesne profit in the suit schedule properties.
3. After service of suit summons, A.B.Shankarappa and
A.B.Chandrappa by filing the written statement admitted the
entire plaint averments and also admitted to decree the suit by
allotting 1/4th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule
property. However, A.B.Byregowda in his written has taken up
a contention that apart from the suit schedule property, there
are three other properties belonging to their joint family.
4. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and
documents on record, partly allowed the suit and held that the
plaintiff is entitled to 9/40th share in the suit schedule item
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
HC-KAR
Nos.1 to 4 and written statement item Nos.1 to 3 properties
vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006.
5. After decreeing the suit, defendant - A.B.Byregowda has
filed FDP proceedings in FDP No.9/2007 before the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur (for brevity "FDP Court")
against Sunandamma, A.B.Shankarappa, A.B.Chandrappa and
the other female legal heirs of the joint family of plaintiff and
defendants. The said proceedings were allowed and the decree
passed by the Trial Court was executed.
6. The said order passed in FDP proceedings was questioned
by Sunandamma, A.B.Shankarappa, A.B.Chandrappa and other
female legal heirs of their joint family before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.78/2015.
7. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the
evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on the ground that
the Commissioner's report and the survey sketch submitted by
the Taluka Surveyor is in accordance with preliminary decree
passed in the suit and the appellants therein have not pointed
out any material defect in the Commissioner's report.
Aggrieved by the same, Sunandamma, A.B.Shankarappa,
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
HC-KAR
A.B.Chandrappa and other female legal heirs of their joint
family are before this Court.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions
advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the entire
evidence on record and also the documents placed before this
Court.
9. Paragraph No.12 of the order passed in FDP No.9/2007
reads as under:
"12. On perusal of Tahasildar report
alongwith the sketch prepared by the
Surveyor, it reveals that before measure the
property all the parties have received notice
and the respondent No.2 and village elders
have signed the mahazar It shows that the
Tahasildar through his surveyor effected
partition of schedule properties in the presence
of both parties. It is not case of the
respondents that the surveyor not allotted the
respondents shares separately. When
conducting auction of house property the
respondents jointly taken said house as their
share. It shows that there is no dispute in
between the respondents and they have live
together. Accordingly the share allotted to the
respondent in jointly and petitioners share
NC: 2025:KHC:48087
HC-KAR
separately as a block No.1 in all the schedule
property is in accordance with law. With these
observations the objection filed by the
respondents is not sustainable and the report
submitted by the Tahasildar is liable to be
accepted. The report further reveals that the
parties to the proceedings already taken their
respective shares before the panchas and
Tahasildar. Hence, this court allots the shares
out of the suit schedule properties as per
report submitted by the Court commissioner."
10. In view of the above findings and also considering the
fact that the Commissioner's report and the survey sketch
submitted by the Taluka surveyor is in accordance with the
preliminary decree passed in the suit and the appellants herein
have not pointed out any material defect in the Commissioner's
report, the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the
appeal. As such, I find no question of law much less substantial
question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
