Karnataka High Court
Smt Jamuna Rani vs Smt Jayamma on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT JAMUNA RANI
W/O KUMAR
D/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A AMBEDKAR NAGARA
KERALAPURA ROAD
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPRUA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
ASLO NOW R/AT NO.3265,
4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN
GAYATHIRNAGAR
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 021
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. SMT MOHANA KUMARI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA W/O SUNANDAKUMARA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SMT SANDHYA RANI
D/O RAMANNA D
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT AMBEDKAR NAGARA
KERALAPURA ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPRUA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/A KOTE CHANNAPATNA TOWN
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 160
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O THE RAJ
NO.41, LIC COLONY
BEHIND AYAPPA FARM
YASHWANTHPURA
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 022
2. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE B K NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. SRI SHVIAKUMARA
S/O LATE G K NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SL.NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT
NO.1500, C AND D BLOCK
SANJE RAVI ROAD
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSORE CITY - 570 023
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SMT SANNIRAMMA
W/O CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/AT SRI RAMA NAGARA
HALEKOTE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
5. SRI VASANTH
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A BORANAHALLI VILLAGE
HALEKOTE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
6. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O ANNAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A ANEKANNAMBADI VILLAGE
HALLI MYSORE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
PRESENTLY R/AT A K COLONY
AMBEDKAR NAGAR
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
7. SRI H R RANGASWAMY
S/O RANGAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT PWD QUARTERS
WARD NO.14,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
ARAKALAGUDU TOWN
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
8. SRI DASA PRAKASH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A NEAR VIJAYA VITTALA BHAJANA MANDIR
BAJPE, MANALORE TOWN
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT
PIN - 575 001
9. SRI M S PRADEEP
S/O SHANTHARAJU
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A MALALI VILLAGE
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 124
10. SMT H R SHASHIREKHA
W/O LATE S HANUMANTHAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/A WARD NO.20, NEW LAYOUT
DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN
HOLENARASIPIURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
R8 AND R9 SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025,
NOTICE TO R10 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2025,
NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.01.2025,
NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
RSA No. 704 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2020
PASSED IN OS NO.137/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE, JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before
the Trial Court, while seeking the relief of partition and
separate possession is that the suit schedule properties
are ancestral joint family properties and hence, she is
entitled to a share over the suit schedule properties.
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant
No.4 has appeared and filed the written statement
contending that suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the
Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to
lead evidence. During the course of trial, the plaintiff
herself examined as PW1 and got marked 21 documents
as Exs.P1 to P21. On the other hand, defendant No.4
herself examined as DW1 and got marked 2 documents as
Exs.D1 and D2. The other defendants did not lead any
evidence.
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, met the issues framed by the Trial
Court in comes to the conclusion that suit schedule
properties are ancestral joint family properties and that
the suit is not barred by limitation as contend by
defendant No.4. The Trial Court granted 1/6th share to the
plaintiff and also held that defendant Nos.4 to 6 are
entitled for 1/2 share along with 1/6thshare. It also comes
to the conclusion that mother had passed away prior to
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
09.09.2005 and therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no
right over the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court also
held that sale made by defendant No.4 in respect of Item
No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 12 does not bind the
plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
defendant Nos.4 to 6 preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Court.
6. The First Appellate Court also having considered
the grounds which have been urged in appeal memo,
formulated the points for determination i.e.,
i. Whether the Trial Court was justified in
holding that plaintiff is entitled for
partition?
ii. Whether the Trial Court was justified in
partly decreeing the suit holding that as
on 2005 Dyavannaiah was not alive as
such, the plaintiff is entitled for notional
partition in the suit schedule properties?
iii. Whether the cross-objection filed by the
plaintiff is in time and whether judgment
and decree of the Trial Court requires
any interference?
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
7. The First Appellate Court having reassessed
both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the
conclusion that Trial Court was justified in holding that
plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share and other points for
consideration were answered as 'negative' and also
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available
on record were modified.
8. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court in
coming to the conclusion that plaintiff and defendant No.3
being the daughters of late Dyavanna, they are entitled for
1/4th share each in all the suit schedule properties by
metes and bounds. Likewise, defendant Nos.1 and 2 being
the sons of late Devamma, they together entitled for 1/4th
share in all the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.4
to 6 being the daughters of late Ramanna, they together
entitled for 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties.
Accordingly, equal share were granted in respect of the
children of original propositors. Being aggrieved by these
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
concurrent findings, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have preferred
the present second appeal.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants before this Court is that both
the Courts have committed an error in considering the suit
of the plaintiff for partition and the First Appellate Court
was not justified in interfering with the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court and erroneously modified the
same. It is contended that the Appellate Court committed
an error in answering the point Nos.2 to 4 as 'negative'
and point No.1 as 'affirmative'. Hence, this Court has to
admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 would vehemently contends that the Trial
Court by referring to the Phulavati case, had granted
1/6th share, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma, the Trial
Court has rightly granted 1/6th share. Hence, it does not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
require any interference or modification in accordance with
law.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.1, it is not in dispute that one
Dyavannaiah, propositor and head of the family, had four
children, the fourth one is daughter, who filed the suit for
claiming partition and made her sister's children as
defendant Nos.1 and 2. She arrayed her sister as
defendant No.3 and her brother's children as defendant
Nos.4 to 6. Hence, there is no dispute between the parties
with regard to the relationship. It is also not in dispute
with regard to the fact that properties belong to the
family.
12. The learned counsel appearing per the
appellants submits that defendant Nos.4 to 6 have already
sold the property, but the plaintiff was not a party to the
said sale deed. Hence, such being the case, both the Trial
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
Court and Appellate Court have considered the material
available on record in the proper perspective. Since the
share of the plaintiff was not given and she was not a
party to any alienation and the same was not binding the
plaintiff, which has also been observed by the Trial Court
while passing the order. Though the trial Court committed
an error in apportioning the share, but the First Appellate
Court modified the same and has rightly apportioned the
share as 1/4th.
13. When such being the case, when the question
of law and also facts have been considered by both the
Courts, I do not find any error or any perversity in the
findings of Trial Court and the Appellate Court in granting
the share in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, no ground is
made out to admit the appeal or to frame substantial
questions of law invoking Section 100 of the CPC.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49164
HC-KAR
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SMC
