Karnataka High Court
Sri N Manjunath vs Smt Girijamma on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
RSA No. 1297 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1297 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. N. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE N. NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RA/T PERESANDRA VILLAGE,
MANDIKAL HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.R. VIJAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA,
D/O LATE N. NANJUNDAPPA,
Digitally signed W/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT AGALAGURKI VILLAGE,
COURT OF NANDI HOBLI,
KARNATAKA
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562101.
2. SMT. NIRMALAMMA,
D/O LATE N. NANJUNDAPPA,
W/O MAHADESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT TOWN HALL CIRCLE,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562110,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
RSA No. 1297 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. KUMARAMAM @ SHIVAKUMARI,
D/O LATE N. NANJUNDAPPA,
W/O NATARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT TOWN HALL CIRCLE,
DEVANHALLI TOWN-562110,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. SMT.SHARADAMMA,
D/O LATE N. NANJUNDAPPA,
W/O MRUTHUNJAYA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND KANNADA SCHOOL,
HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
B.B. ROAD, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560071.
5. SRI. GAJENERA D.L.,
S/O LAXMIPATI D.A.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT S. DEVAJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SADALLI HOBLI,
SIDALGAHTA TALUK-562105,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R4
AND ALSO VAKALATH FILED FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.97/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUARA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.450/2007
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
RSA No. 1297 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and
separate possession it is contented that the plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 are the children of late N.Nanjundappa and
Smt. Puttarajamma, who is defendant No.2 herein. The
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and
enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as coparceners and
they have inherited the property from their father. The plaint
schedule property was acquired by N.Nanjundappa, the father
of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 through a registered sale
deed in the year 1972-73 out of the joint family nucleus and he
was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
along with his children during his lifetime. The entries in the
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
revenue records were accepted in favour of N.Nanjundappa by
virtue of the sale deed. During his last days, N.Nanjundappa
executed a registered Will dated 26.06.2002 in favour of the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 allotting 1/5th share each to his
children. The Will is duly registered and N.Nanjundappa is no
more. After his death, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have
succeeded the property and they are in joint possession.
4. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the property
bearing junjur No.424, khatha No.105/4, measuring to an
extent of east to west 30 feet, north to south 40 feet, situated
at Peresandra Village, Mandikallu Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk,
belongs to Smt. Puttarajamma W/o Nanjundappa, who is the
mother of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. After her death,
the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are having equal right, title
and interest over the said property and they are entitled to get
share in the said property. However, the defendant colluding
with the Panchayat authority without consent of the plaintiffs,
transferred the khatha in his name without having any legal
right. The defendant No.1 after getting the khatha in his name,
alienated the schedule item No.2 property in favour of proposed
defendant without having any legal right through registered
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
sale deed dated 09.04.2018 and the plaintiffs are also having
equal rights over the schedule item No.2 property. As such,
the alleged sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.3 is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Inspite of
request was made for amicable partition, defendant No.1 did
not come forward to give share and refused to give share to the
plaintiffs and hence suit is filed for the relief of partition.
5. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement
denying the entire averments of the plaint. However, admitted
the relationship between the parties and denied the joint
possession and they are the coparceners. It is contended that
Najundappa has executed an unregistered Will in favour of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 while he was in sound state of mind and
as a result, he became the absolute owner of the property and
the Will was executed on 28.02.2001 in favour of defendant
Nos.1 and 2. As per the Will, the khatha and mutation was
obtained in their names. The defendant No.2 also executed a
Will in favour of defendant No.1 on 28.03.2008 and defendant
No.2 is also no more. The item No.1 was continued in the name
of defendant No.1 and he and his family members are in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. With respect
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
to item No.2 of the property, he claims that the same is his
self-acquired property and he has acquired the same under a
registered sale deed.
6. In view of the pleading of the Will and also the
pleading of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court framed issue Nos.1
and 2 i.e., whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule
properties are ancestral joint family properties of themselves
and defendant No.1, whether defendant No.1 proves the suit
schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of his
father Nanjundappa. The Trial Court also framed the issue
whether defendant No.1 proves the execution of Will by his
father Nanjundappa and also mother i.e., issue Nos.3 and 7.
The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule properties are the
ancestral and joint family properties partly and also defendant
No.1 proves that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired
properties of Nanjundappa as contented by defendant No.1.
But answered issue Nos.3 and 7 in the negative that defendant
No.1 has not proved the Will executed by the father as well as
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
the mother and granted the relief of partition of 4/5th share in
respect of item Nos.1 and 2 properties.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
in R.A.No.97/2023. The First Appellate Court also having re-
assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on
record and keeping in view the grounds which have been
urged, formulated the point and answered the same in the
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Judge has
not committed any error. The First Appellate Court also taken
note of the material on record, particularly defendant No.1
never disclosed about Ex.D.4 Will deed till filing of I.A.No.5 on
09.12.2022. When he has not disclosed Ex.D.24 Will deed for
such a long time, it creates the doubt and so also in respect of
other Will and comes to the conclusion that both the Wills are
not proved by defendant No.1 and the Trial Court has taken
note of the evidence available on record and justified in
allotting equal share to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the
suit properties. The sale made during the pendency of
restoration of petition also will not bind the rights of the
plaintiffs in any manner.
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this court.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant in this second appeal is that both the Courts have
committed an error in not considering the Will, which was
placed before the Court. There is no existence of joint family
and the properties are also not the joint family properties.
Item No.2 of the suit schedule property being a Sthreedana
property of Puttarajamma, the said property was bequeathed
by her in favour of defendant No.1 as per Ex.D.4 and later the
said property was sold to defendant No.3. Inspite of both
Exs.D.4 and 24 are proved in terms of Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act and also Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian
Evidence Act, both the Courts ought not to have disbelieved the
documents of Exs.D.4 and 24 and hence this Court has to
admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 4 would vehemently contend that both the Courts
taken note of the evidence available on record. Though P.W.2
not supported the case of the plaintiffs, but deposed that on
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
the date of execution of registered Will dated 26.06.2002,
which is marked as Ex.P.28, he was in a hurry and at that time,
Najundappa asked him to affix his signature over the same and
he affixed his signature over the same forcibly. The Trial Court
taken note of the evidence of P.W.2 that he affixed his
signature and he did so in hurry at the request of the deceased
Nanjundapa. P.W.2 did not deny his signature over the
registered Will dated 26.06.2002 marked at Ex.P.28 and the
other Will is unregistered Will. D.W.1 also categorically
admitted that his father had purchased the property in the
name of the mother and transfer of khatha in the name of the
mother and khatha was transferred as pavathi varasudara. The
Trial Court taken note of the fact that the property was
purchased in the name of the mother by the father out of the
hotel business and the mother was a house wife and hence,
disbelieved the contention that the mother had executed the
Will and comes to the conclusion that suit item No.2 open plot
is not the exclusive property of the deceased mother. Though
the plaintiffs have set up their case that the suit properties are
the joint family properties, but at the time of acquisition of item
No.1 landed property through registered sale deed dated
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
04.05.1972 marked at Ex.P.3, the plaintiffs were still minors as
per the marks cards marked at Exs.D.25 to 29 and no joint
labour could be expected from minors at the time of acquisition
referred to above and hence answered point No.1 as partly
affirmative. The suit properties cannot be said to be ancestral
properties, but they are the joint family properties of the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The Trial Court taking into note
of the material available on record, granted the relief since the
plaintiffs are the sisters of defendant No.1.
11. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed
the material available on record, taken note of the Will which
was propounded by defendant No.1, which came into existence
under suspicious circumstances. The First Appellate Court also
taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 that, at one stage he has
raised the defence that his parents have orally gifted the suit
properties and later on changed his defence that they have
executed the Will Ex.D.4 in his favour and hence comes to the
conclusion that no hesitation to hold that defendant No.1 has
failed to prove Exs.D.4 and 24 by means of acceptable
evidence. Both the Courts have taken note of both oral and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47695
HC-KAR
documentary evidence available on record and comes to the
conclusion that the Will propounded by defendant No.1 was not
proved by acceptable evidence. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs
of Nanjundappa and when there is a clear admission on the
part of the witnesses that the father had purchased the
property in the name of the mother and there is no any
intestate document by the father Nanjundappa and mother
Puttarajamma, both the courts not committed any error in
granting the share and hence, I do not find any ground to
admit the appeal and frame any substantial question 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
