Karnataka High Court
Sathish vs Roopesh on 27 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
RSA No. 640 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA,
ARALIKERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ROOPESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M ARALIKERE VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH KASABA HOBLI,
COURT OF TURUVEKERE TALUK,
KARNATAKA TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. LALITHAMMA
AGED BOUT 73 YEARS,
W/O LATE MARIBASAPPA,
ARALIKERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
RSA No. 640 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2023
PASSED IN RA NO.10032/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.1/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TURUVEKERE.
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
appellant's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the
Trial Court that Suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are
ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and
defendants. The defendant No.2 appeared and filed written
statement contending that there was a partition dated
25.12.1999 and allowed the parties to lead evidence and
plaintiff also led evidence before the Court also examined
one witness as P.W.2 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
HC-KAR
Ex.P.20. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined as
D.W.1 and also examined one witness as D.W.2 and got
marked document Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.24. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence,
comes to the conclusion that suit schedule property i.e.,
'A' and 'B' properties are ancestral and joint family
properties and granted 4/9th share and contention of the
defendant No.2 that already there was a partition was not
accepted and the same is answered as negative by
answering the Issue No.2.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, an appeal is filed by defendant No.2 in
R.A.No.10032/2018 before the First Appellate Court. The
Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available
on record and considering the grounds which have been
urged in the appeal memo, answered the points that suit
schedule properties are the joint family properties and
though the defense was taken that there was already a
partition on 25.12.1999 and though the defendant No.2,
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
HC-KAR
has taken the said defense that there was an unregistered
partition deed, but he did not prove the same before the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and fails to
prove that there was a partition between himself, plaintiff
and their father in respect of 'A' schedule properties. It is
also his contention that Item No.1 was purchased by
mortgaging the properties allotted to his share and item
No.2 is purchased out of his own earning. The defendant
No.2 has failed to prove that there was a partition and
share was allotted to him and nothing is placed on record.
Hence, the contention of the appellant was not accepted
and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, the present second appeal is filed before this
Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellant that both the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court committed an error in not considering the previous
partition which is not challenged by the respondent herein
and also the very suit itself is not maintainable when there
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
HC-KAR
was a partition earlier and also both the Courts have
committed an error and not give any credence to the
revenue entries which is standing in the name of the
appellant. Hence, this Court has to admit and frame
substantive question of law.
5. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that though specific defense was
taken that there was already a partition and not produced
any document and to evidence the said fact also, nothing
is placed on record, both the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court taken note of the same. Hence, no ground
is made out to admit and frame any substantive question
of law.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also the learned counsel for the
respondents, no dispute with regard to the relationship
between the parties and also with regard to the nature of
the properties and only contention was taken by the
appellant before the Trial Court that there was already a
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
HC-KAR
partition in the year 1999 and in order to substantiate the
same, no document is placed before the Court either
before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on
record, particularly in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 comes to
the conclusion that in order to prove the factum that
earlier partition deed dated 25.12.1999, not produced any
document before the Trial Court and also before the First
Appellate Court and even with regard to there was a
partition between himself, plaintiff and their father in
respect of the 'A' schedule property also, nothing is placed
on record. Though claims that Item No.2 was purchased
by himself and Item No.1 was also mortgaged and the
same was allotted to his share. In order to substantiate
the same, nothing is placed on record and taking into note
of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
when the appellant fails to prove the same, not found any
perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and also the
First Appellate Court and specific defense which was taken
NC: 2025:KHC:49626
HC-KAR
was not substantiated by placing any document before the
Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame
substantive question of law.
7. 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
