Karnataka High Court
Doddagangamma vs Mahadevaiah on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
RSA No. 426 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
DODDAGANGAMMA
W/O NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O SUGGANAPALYA
GUBBI TALUK 572 216,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHADEVAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/O MELEHALLI
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101
COURT OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN
RA NO 242/2016 (OLD NO.53/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2009 PASSED IN OS NO.431/2000
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
JMFC, TUMKUR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
RSA No. 426 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that Nanjundappa, father
of the plaintiff had two wives namely Siddamma and
Siddalingamma. Plaintiff is the daughter of Nanjundappa
and Siddamma. However, Siddalingamma had no issues.
Hence, after the death of Nanjundappa, plaintiff inherited
his property i.e. the suit schedule property and put in
possession of the same. The defendant, who claims to be
the adopted son of Siddalingamma (second wife of
Nanjundappa) attempted to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of
the plaintiff by denying her title. Hence, the plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the
defendant.
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
3. However, defendant denied the plaint averments by
filing written statements dated 25.07.2003 and
06.11.2007 respectively contending there was
unregistered Partition Deed/Palupatti dated 18.03.1985
executed between the plaintiff and Siddlingamma. After
demise of Nanjundappa and by virtue of said Partition
Deed, Siddalingamma obtained suit schedule property and
she executed a Will dated 31.08.1999 in favour of
defendant, who is her adopted son. As such, he is having
right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.
4. The Trial Court based on rival pleadings, framed the
relevant issues and after considering the evidence and
documents placed on record by both the parties, has
recorded a finding that the plaintiff being the only legal
heir of late Nanjundappa, she has rightly inherited the suit
schedule property, whereas the defendant failed to prove
that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue
of the registered Will dated 31.08.1999. Accordingly, the
suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
owner of suit schedule property and the defendant was
permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court has recorded a
finding that the Trial Court has not considered Ex.D2 -
Palupatti so also the registered Will executed in favour of
the defendant. By virtue of the Will, the defendant
succeeded to the property and accordingly allowed the
appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court.
6. Heard Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant. Respondent though served, remained
unrepresented.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant-plaintff is that the First Appellate has grossly
erred while setting aside the impugned judgment of the
Trial Court based on the Will i.e., Ex.D1. According to
him, Siddalingamma had no title in respect of suit
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
schedule property to execute the Will in favour of the
defendant since Ex.D2 - Palupatti is not proved as it is an
unregistered document and according to the defendant, he
came to know about the said Palupatti after execution of
the Will. As such, question of execution of Will based on
Ex.D2 by Siddalingamma does not arise at all.
8. He further contended that defendant did not step into
the witness box and his GPA holder adduced evidence on
his behalf without placing any documents to prove that the
defendant was unable to adduce evidence. Further, there
is no pleading in the written statement filed initially by the
defendant in respect of unregistered Palupatti.
Additionally, the Will is not proved in accordance with law
since there is discrepancy in the evidence of attesting and
scribe of the Will - DWs.1 and 2. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and after perusal of the documents placed before the
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
Court, the following substantial questions of law arises for
consideration in this appeal:
i) Whether the First Appellate Court is
justified in placing reliance on an
unregistered Palupatti - Ex.D2 though the
same was objected by the plaintiff at the
time of marking?
ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is
justified in holding that execution of Ex.D1
has been proved based on the evidence of
DWs.1 to 3?
10. As could be gathered from records, the marital status
of Siddalingamma with Nanjundappa as his second wife
and the fact that they had no issues are not in dispute. It
is also not in dispute that Siddamma is the first wife of
Nanjundappa and the plaintiff is the only daughter of
Nanjundappa and Siddamma. However, the defendant
claims to be the adopted son of Siddalingamma. According
to defendant, after the demise of Nanjundappa, the
plaintiff and Siddalingamma partitioned the larger extent
of suit schedule property by metes and bounds vide
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
Partition Deed/Palupatti dated 10.03.1985. Thereafter,
Siddalingamma executed a registered Will dated
31.08.1999 - Ex.D1 in favour of defendant in respect of
suit schedule property. Thereby, the defendant became
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial
Court while marshaling the facts and evidence came to the
conclusion that Siddalingamma being the second wife of
Nanjundappa died issue less and the unregistered Partition
Deed 10.03.1985 had not acted upon till the execution of
Will dated 31.08.1999. On perusal of the evidence of
DW.1, he categorically admitted that the defendant came
to know about the Partition Deed-Ex.D2 after execution of
the Will. Further, the defendant is not the family member
of Siddalingamma. The Trial Court also opined that the
alleged Will relied on by the defendant is not proved in
accordance with law, since there is discrepancy in the
evidence of DW.2 - the scribe and attesting witness of said
Will in respect of its execution. Further, the Partition Deed
- Ex.D2 being an unregistered document marked in
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
evidence subject to objection of the plaintiff, the same
cannot be relied in evidence. Without proving the said
document, Siddalingamma will not acquire any title in
respect of suit schedule property to execute a Will in
favour of the defendant. In such circumstance, the Trial
Court held that the partition Deed-Ex.D2 is not proved and
consequently Will dated 31.08.1999-Ex.D1 is also not
proved. On the other hand, the plaintiff by placing
sufficient documents proved that she being the sole legal
heir of Nanjundappa and Siddamma, inherited the suit
schedule property and the revenue documents stand in
her name, which depicts that she is in uninterrupted
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Further, it is clear from her evidence that the defendant by
virtue of Will-Ex.D1 had interfered with the possession of
the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit.
11. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by relying
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
on Ex.D2-Palupatti/Partition Deed and the Will-Ex.D1.
According to the First Appellate Court, since the Will is a
registered document, there is no reason to doubt the
genuineness of the said document.
12. After careful perusal of the entire evidence on record,
I am unable to accept the reasoning of the First Appellate
Court for the simple reason that the Will cannot be relied
upon to decide the title of the defendant in the suit
schedule property, since the Palupatti/Partition Deed dated
10.03.1985 is not only an unregistered document, but also
not acted upon till the execution of alleged Will dated
31.08.1999. It is the categorical admission of DW.1 in his
evidence that he got the Palupatti after execution of the
alleged Will. Admittedly, no revenue entries changed in
the name of Siddalingamma based on Palupatti. Once the
Palupatti is not proved in accordance with law, the
execution of the Will by Siddalingamma cannot be
accepted. Further, there is no mention in the Will-Ex.D1
about the flow of title by virtue of Ex.D2-Paluppatti. In
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
such circumstance, the First Appellate Court is not justified
in allowing the regular appeal. On the other hand, the Trial
Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and documents
on record and held that the plaintiff is the sole surviving
legal heir of Nanjundappa and Siddamma and as such, she
rightly inherited the suit schedule property and also about
the interference of the defendant in the suit schedule
property. The Trial Court has also rightly observed that
mere registration of the Will itself does not prove its
genuineness without acceptable evidence about its
execution. In that view of the matter, I answer both the
substantial questions of law in the "negative" and
accordingly proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
13.11.2018 passed in R.A.No.242/2016
(Old No.53/2009) is set aside.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44458
HC-KAR
iii) Consequently, the judgment and decree dated
24.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.431/2000 by the
Trial Court is upheld.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
