Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala vs Sri Kiran M Pethi on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
RSA No. 687 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.687 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O. SIDDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DEVARATHOPU
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
PIN CODE: 572 127.
2. SMT. KANAKALAKSHMI
W/O. VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT YERRSANIPALLI
THAMBALAPALLI MANDAL
MADNAPALLI TALUK
Digitally signed CHITTOOR DISTRICT
by DEVIKA M
ANDRAPRADESH
Location: HIGH PIN CODE: 517 418.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KIRAN M. PETHI
S/O. MANIARUS M. PETHI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEASR
R/AT MAIDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
PIN CODE: 577 127.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
RSA No. 687 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SRI. R.B. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O. R.S. BASAVARAJU
3. SRI. R.V. BABU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O. B.R. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY
4. SRI. R.V. RAVI TEJA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O. B.R. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY
5. SRI. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. R.S. BASAVARAJU
6. SMT. PALAVI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O. GIRISH
7. SMT. LAVANYA
D/O. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
8. MS. VIDYA
D/O. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
9. SRI. R.S. BASAVARAJU
S/O. LATE SANJIVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
10. SRI. R.B. DINESH
S/O. BASAVARAJU R.S.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 ARE
R/AT REDDYHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
RSA No. 687 of 2024
HC-KAR
MADHUGIRI TALUK
PIN CODE: 572 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADARSHA K.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5012/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU,
SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.
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 matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that all the suit schedule properties are
the ancestral properties and all of them are members of the
joint family and sale deed executed on 05.02.2015 by plaintiff
Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 is
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
HC-KAR
by fraud, misrepresentation and cheating. The plaintiffs further
contend that plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 to 8 are the joint
owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties, for
partition and separate possession and all of them are entitled
for 4/6th share.
4. The defendant No.1 took the contention in the
written statement that suit itself is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties. The defendant No.1 also contend that suit is
filed only for the properties which are sold in his favour and the
same is not maintainable for partial partition. Hence, the
plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
evidence and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as
well as the documents Exs.P1 to P7 and also the evidence of
D.W.1 and the documents Exs.D1 to D5, comes to the
conclusion that properties are not available for partition, since
the properties are already sold by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the
defendant Nos.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and even
inspite of properties were sold by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
HC-KAR
defendant Nos.2 to 4, the present suit is filed along with
plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact
that suit is filed in respect of the properties which have been
sold in favour of defendant No.1 and all other family properties
are not included. Hence, answered issue No.6 in 'affirmative', in
coming to the conclusion that suit is bad for partial partition
and also comes to the conclusion that suit is a collusive suit to
defeat the right of defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.5012/2022. The First Appellate Court also on
re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, in
paragraph No.26, in detail discussed invoking the jurisdiction of
the Court to set aside the sale deed and also taken note of the
fact that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the
parties to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1
and also taken note of the fact that plaintiffs have sought only
for the relief of cancellation of sale deed which have been
executed and also taken note of the fact that present suit is
filed in respect of only few items of the property selected by
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
HC-KAR
plaintiff No.1 which has been sold by the family members and it
clearly discloses that with a malafide intention, the plaintiffs
have filed the present suit and dismissed the same.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that before selling the properties, suit was
filed and the same was compromised immediately and the said
compromise decree was challenged by filing a writ petition
before this Court and this Court can decide the second appeal
after disposal of the writ petition. The counsel also would
contend that plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are not the parties to the sale
deed and their interest has to be protected.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and
also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in
dispute that plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4
have sold the property in favour of defendant No.1. It is also
not in dispute that, even inspite of properties were sold by
them, they also joined along with plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 for
cancellation of sale deed. It is also important to note that when
the compromise decree was challenged before this Court by
filing a writ petition and even though the same is pending
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
HC-KAR
before this Court, the issue involved between the parties is that
only the properties which have been sold in favour of defendant
No.1 have been questioned in the suit and the Trial Court also
while answering issue No.6 rightly comes to the conclusion that
suit for partial partition is not maintainable and also taken note
of the fact that suit is filed only in respect of the properties
which have been sold by the other joint family members and
when collusive suit is filed and the same is only with an
intention to defeat the rights of defendant No.1. Though the
other properties are also available for the family, the plaintiffs
ought to have included those properties in the partition and the
same has not been done. When such being the case when the
Trial Court has given the definite finding that suit itself is not
maintainable for partial partition, even if the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants is accepted that writ petition
is pending and the same is with regard to compromise is
concerned, no purpose would be served in keeping this second
appeal pending before this Court and if this Court comes to the
conclusion in the writ petition that compromise was not in the
interest of all the family members and if compromise is set
aside, liberty is reserved to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 to include
NC: 2025:KHC:44104
HC-KAR
other family properties and seek for comprehensive relief of
partition, including all the properties and also make other
family members as parties to the proceedings and question of
admitting this second appeal and framing any substantial
question of law does not arise, since this Court already comes
to the conclusion that no purpose would be served in keeping
the second appeal pending when the suit itself is filed only for
partial partition.
With these observations, the second appeal is disposed
of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
