Karnataka High Court
Sanna Kariyappa vs Kariyappa Kottehall on 20 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
RSA No. 94 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SANNA KARIYAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA IRANI KOTIGERA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577601
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARIYAPPA KOTTEHALL
S/O LATE MAILAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. SMT. RATNAVVA
COURT OF W/O GUDDAPAP
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O KAVALETTU VILALGE
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISRICT - 577201.
3. SMT. SAKAVVA
W/O MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. MAHANTHESH , S/O KARIYAPPA KOTTEHALL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
RSA No. 94 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. KUM. GAYATHRI
D/O KARIYAPAP KOTTEHALL
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
6. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA KOTTEHALL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 6 ARE
R/O SOMLAPURA VILLAGE
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISRICT- 581115.
DODDA KARIYAPPA
DEAD BY LRS.
7. SMT. PAKEERAMMA
W/O LATE DODDA KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
HOUSE HOLD WORKER
8. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LAXAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
9. SMT. SIDDAMMA
W/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 9 ARE
R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
HANAGAWADI, HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577601.
BEERAPPA
D/O LATE DODDA KARIYAPPA
RESPONDENT NO.7(D) IN R.A NO.51/2017
SINCE DIED ON 21-11-2024
REPRSENTED BY HIS LRS.
10. MANJAMMA, W/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
RSA No. 94 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. GOUTHAMI
D/OLATE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER-R10
MANJAMMA W/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 30 YEARS
12. BHAVANI
D/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER-R10
MANJAMMA W/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 30 YEARS
13. NAVYA
D/O LAE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER-R10
MANJAMMA W/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 30 YEARS
14. YUVARAJ
S/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER-R10
MANJAMMA W/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 30 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.10 TO 14 ARE
R/O NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
HANAGAWADI, HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 601.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.11.2024
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
RSA No. 94 of 2025
HC-KAR
PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.03.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.157/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR AND ETC.
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 second appeal filed against the concurrent finding of
the trial court as well as the first appellate court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiffs before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession is that the suit property is the joint family property
of themselves and the defendants. But the defendants are
making an attempt to dispose of the property. Hence, filed the
suit. In pursuance of suit summons, defendants appeared and
filed written statement wherein defendant No.2 contend that
there is a prior partition in respect of the suit property and that
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
HC-KAR
partition is binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants took the
contention that suit is barred by time.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the fact
that the property belongs to the Bharamavva and Bharamavva
passed away in the year 2009. It was pleaded that there was a
prior partition in the year 2009 and plaintiffs are not the parties
to the said partition. Hence, the trial court granted the relief of
partition to the extent of 1/3rd share in respect of the suit
property.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial
Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court
in R.A.No.51/2017. The First Appellate Court having considered
the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated
the points and having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that the
partition dated 23.09.2009 not binds the plaintiffs and name of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 were separately shown in the RTC
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
HC-KAR
extract consequent upon the partition. It is not in dispute that
property originally belongs to the Bharamavva who is the
absolute owner of the suit property till her death and no any
testamentary document executed by her. Thus, confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
finding of both the courts, the present second appeal is filed
before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to
consider the gift deed which was made in favour of
Bharamavva and the children but Pakeeravva was not born at
the time of gift deed dated 11.12.1961. When such being the
case, the Trial Court ought to have examined the said gift deed
in a proper perspective and the same is not considered and the
Appellate Court also not exercised appellate power in a proper
manner. Hence, both the courts have committed an error. The
counsel also vehemently content that already there was a oral
partition in year 1987 and the same was reduced into writing in
the year 2009 and the same was registered with the consent of
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
HC-KAR
the Bharamavva. Hence, prayed this court to admit the appeal
and frame the substantial question of law.
7. Having heard the counsel for the appellants and
also on perusal of the material on record as well as the
reasoning of the trial Court, it discloses that though it is
pleaded that earlier there was a partition in the year 1987, but
the same is not supported by any materials. It is not in dispute
that document of registered partition came into force in the
year 2009 and the plaintiffs are not the parties to the said
partition. It is not in dispute that originally, the property
belongs to the Bharamavva and she also died intestate. In the
absence of any testamentary document and the plaintiffs are
not parties to the said partition and the same has been pleaded
by the defendants, the very contention of the counsel for the
appellants cannot be accepted. Hence, both the Courts have
rightly taken note of material available on record and granted
the relief. Unless there is a perversity in the finding of both the
Courts, the question of invoking Section 100 of CPC does not
arise since, both the Courts have rightly considered the
question of facts and also the question of law. Hence, I do not
NC: 2025:KHC:47996
HC-KAR
find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantive
question of law.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
