Karnataka High Court
Chikkegowda vs B K Lokesha on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
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.1327 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKEGOWDA
S/O SURAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/O BUGUDANAHALLI,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKRU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.K. LOKESHA,
S/O B.S.KEMPANANJAPPA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O BUGUDANAHALLI,
by DEVIKA M BELLAVI TALUK,
Location: HIGH TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE B.S.KEMPAJAMMA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
3. SMT. ANNAPURNA,
W/O LINGEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
D/O LATE B.S.KEMPAJAMMA,
R/O AT NALLURU VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK.
4. SIDDAMMA,
W/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA,
AGED 61 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
5. MUNIRAJ,
S/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
6. ANANDA,
S/O LATE JAYADEVAPPA,
AGED 46 YEATRS,
R/O BUDUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
7. MANJAMMA,
W/O KUMAR,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/O YELIYUR VILLAGE,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTIRCT.
8. SAROJAMMA,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/O C/O GORKAR KEMPANNA,
CHELUR VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. KUMARI @ KANYAKUMARI,
W/0 NADISHA,
AGED 45 YEARS,
R/O VIJAYA UPAHARA,
SIT MAIN ROAD, MARALURU
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU.
10. GANGAMMA
W/O GDIYAPPA,
D/O SURAPPA,
AGED 73 YEARS,
R/O KODIYALA VILLAGE,
CHELUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
11. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O NANJUDASWAMY.
D/O SURAPPA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
R/O AADHI HOSAHALLY,
MUDDLINGANAHALLI POST,
NELAMANAGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
12. BYRAPPA,
S/O MUDDAPPA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
R/O SHANTHINAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU.
13. THANUJA,
D/O BYRAPPA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/O LAKSHIMIPURA,
CHIKKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. LATHA W/O GURURAJ,
D/O SURAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/AT VADDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ARUDI POST,
GOWRIBIDANNURU TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
15. GURUPRASAD S/O SURAPPA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
16. NARASEGOWDA,
S/O SURAPPA,
AGED 51 YEATS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
17. BORAMMA W/O SURAPPA,
AGED 82 YEARS,
R/O BUDUGANAHALLI,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.52/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.24/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
RSA No. 1327 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
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition
and separate possession, specifically pleaded that the
plaintiff along with defendant Nos.1 to 6 constituted the
joint family and scheduled properties are ancestral
properties. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 took the
contention that defendant No.1 separated from the joint
family and also considering the written statement filed by
defendant No.5, additional issue also framed that whether
the 5th defendant proved that Gowramma had executed
the registered Will dated 21.07.1992 jointly in favour of
Narasegowda and the 5th defendant in respect of some of
the properties as contended in the written statement and
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
also whether the 5th defendant proves that the sale
proceeds of the crops grown in the properties fallen to him
under the Will dated 21.07.1992 and his own earnings, he
has purchased the suit schedule Item No.11 of the
property and whether it is a self-acquired property and
also considering the defence of the defendant Nos.1, 3 to
6, it is contended that 1st defendant has sold the suit
schedule Item No.2 property in favour of 2nd defendant for
family necessity, whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 proves
that suit schedule Item No.4 to 7, 9 and 10 properties are
the self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant and suit
schedule Item No.8 is the streedhana property of
Boramma, whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the
2nd defendant is living separately by enjoying the
properties acquired under the registered gift deed dated
12.12.1963 and whether defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove
that the 2nd defendant has sold the suit Item No.8 to 10
properties and the lands bearing Sy.No.41/3A, 41/2 and
75/2 as averred in the written statement and also whether
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 prove that the 1st defendant
has executed the registered Will dated 29.08.1988 as
contended in the written statement.
3. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead
evidence. Having considered the evidence available on
record, answered the Issue No.1 and 2 as affirmative in
coming to the conclusion that they constitute the joint
family and properties are the ancestral properties and also
answered the other Issue Nos.3 and 4 as negative.
However, answered the Issue No.5 as affirmative that
there is a cause of action and additional Issues Nos.1, 2,
3, and 5 framed on different dates were also answered as
negative and additional Issue No.4 dated 12.01.2018
answered in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion
that property was already sold i.e., defendant No.2 in
respect of Item Nos.8 to 10 and answered other additional
Issue No.5 and 6 as negative and comes to the conclusion
that Will which was propounded is surrounded with
suspicious circumstances and even though the document
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
is registered and examined the witness, attesting witness,
but, document clearly discloses that Will came into
existence in a suspicious circumstances that has been
discussed in paragraph Nos.43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48
while answering Issue No.6 dated 12.01.2018 and also
taken note of admittedly the properties sold by the 2nd
defendant are acquired by him under a registered gift
deed dated 12.12.1963 executed by Narasegowda who is
the brother of the 1st defendant. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.25 are
the certified copies of the said gift deed and also admitted
fact that the said properties gifted by Narasegowda in
favour of defendant No.2 are acquired by him under the
registered partition deed dated 03.01.1957. The D.W.1
also admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of
execution of the said gift deed, the defendant No.2 was a
minor and aged about 10 years and the defendant No.1
has represented as natural guardian of the minor of
defendant No.2. Such being the facts and circumstances of
the properties gifted by Narasegowda in favour of
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
defendant No.2 will become his self-acquired properties
and the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in it under
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff has neither
challenged the said sale transaction nor any right to do so
as the same are not devolved to the plaintiff and hence,
the purchasers of the properties from defendant No.2 are
not just and necessary parties to the suit since, the very
ground was taken and hence, definite conclusion was
given by the Trial Court in granting the relief by partly
decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and entitled for
partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share out of
2.37½ /18 share of the deceased 2nd defendant in the suit
schedule properties by metes and bounds since the sale of
the suit sale Item No.2 property in favour of the 7th
defendant is not for the family necessity and benefit of the
family and transaction is not binding on the share of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit property and hence, granted
the relief in favour of the plaintiff.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, first appeal is filed before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having re-
assessed both oral and documentary evidence in view of
the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal,
formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an
error in granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff in not
accepting the Will as propounded by the defendant and on
evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence, the
First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that
Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the
conclusion and answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 and other
Issues as negative and so also in respect of the sale of the
property by defendant No.2 also accepted the reasoning of
the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the
Appellate Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, second appeal is filed before this Court. The main
contention of the counsel appearing to the appellant that
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
in respect of the father of the plaintiff/respondent No.1
had filed suit in O.S.No.62/1993 against the appellant and
other respondents also with respect to Item Nos.1 to 10
properties have got dismissed as settled out of Court. In
the above said circumstances, the suit is not maintainable.
The counsel would vehemently contend that in the
absence of pleading of proof by the plaintiff with regard to
the joint family having nucleus to purchase the property in
the name of defendant No.1, the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court not right in decreeing the suit. The counsel
would vehemently contend that when the registered Will
dated 20.04.2017 was executed and the same is proved in
terms of Section 68, ought not to have granted the relief
in respect of the said properties and both the Courts have
committed an error and hence, this Court has to admit and
framed substantive question of law.
6. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
considering the material available on record, particularly
the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the defendants and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
also the additional Issues which have been framed and the
same has been considered by the Trial Court and Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that they constitute the
joint family and properties are an ancestral properties and
also with regard to the contention of the defendant No.1, 3
to 6 that already defendant No.1 separated from the joint
family was not accepted and also the contention of the
defendant that there was a registered Will dated
21.07.1992 and in terms of the said Will, he was having
his own earnings and he has purchased suit schedule
property and it was turned down by the Trial Court since
the very Will which was marked as Ex.P.18 comes to the
conclusion that disinheriting the property of the very legal
heirs of the executant of the Will is a suspicious
circumstances and also taken note of the circumstances
under which the document came into existence in
paragraph No.42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 in detail taken note of
Ex.D.18 and also taken note of 6th defendant is unmarried
daughter of the 1st defendant. The D.W.1 admitted in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
cross-examination that defendant Nos.3 and 6 are
handicapped. The D.W.2 also deposed that 3rd defendant
is also handicapped persons and considering the material
available on record, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that excluding the 2nd defendant, it reveal that
the mind of the testator was not free while executing the
document of Ex.D.18 and also taken note of the 1st
defendant has given the family properties 2 to 3 times to
the 2nd defendant and he has sold the same. It is not the
case of the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 that the 1st defendant
has given such family properties to the 2nd defendant and
having taken note of the material available on record,
rightly comes to the conclusion that Will has not been
proved as propounded by the defendant No.5 and so also
with regard to the self acquisition based on the said Will
properties and also considering the material on record,
rightly comes to the conclusion that Will is surrounded
with the suspicious circumstances.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
7. The First Appellate Court also in detail
considered the material on record and on re-appreciation
of the material available on record, comes to the
conclusion that whether the said Will is executed in a
suspicious circumstances and also taken note of the
natural heirs have been disinherited and also no such
reason is assigned for disinheriting the other natural heirs
and confirmed the same. When such finding is given by
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, this
Court only in a case where the perversity is found in
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence can
admit the second appeal and the same is not found in the
reasoning of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate
Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground
to admit and frame substantive question of law by
invoking Section 100 of CPC.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47815
HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Second appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any
do not survive for consideration, the same
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
