Karnataka High Court
Hanumamma vs Smt. Manjulamma on 4 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
RSA No. 1386 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1386 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMAMMA,
W/O R. DAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
2. D RANGASWAMY,
S/O R DEVAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
3. SRI G RAMESH,
S/O R DEVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O GAVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KAVITHA H C, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SMT. MANJULAMMA,
W/O SRI JINJAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
1. SRI JINJAPPA,
H/O LATE MANJULAMMA,
S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. SRI PRASHANTH J,
S/O LATE MANJULAMMA AND SRI JINJAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
RSA No. 1386 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENT OF
B.KATTIHALLI VILLAGE,
GANDHIPURA EXTENSION,
HASSAN - 573 220.
3. SMT. PRIYANKA J,
D/O LATE MANJULAMMA AND SRI JINJAPPA
W/O SRI LOHITH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O BANDALLI VILLAGE,
GUDDENAHALLI POST,
DODDA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 220.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SATHISH S P, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3
[CP NO.13467/2024])
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.02/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.11.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.18/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
RSA No. 1386 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the appellants' counsel. This matter is listed for
Admission.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent findings. The factual matrix of case of the
plaintiff before the trial Court while seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession is, that the suit
schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties and the registered Partition Deed dated
12.01.2018 executed between the defendants is not
binding on her. Defendants took the contention that an
extent of 02 guntas in Survey No. 85/5 has been taken by
the plaintiff as her share by way of palu parikath and got
constructed the house in the said property and there was
already a partition. Once when she has taken the share,
she cannot maintain a suit for partition.
3. The trial Court having considered the grounds
which have been urged in the plaint as well as in the
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
written statement and also the oral and documentary
evidence answered issue No.1 in the affirmative holding
that plaintiff and defendants are the members of Hindu
joint family. It has also answered Issue No.2 partly in the
affirmative holding that suit schedule properties are the
joint family properties, except, Item No. 6 and also comes
to the conclusion that partition between the father and
sons entered on 12.01.2018 is not binding the plaintiff
and granted the relief in favour of plaintiff by granting
5/16th share in the suit Item Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. The same
has been challenged before the Appellate Court in RA
No.2/2023 by the 4th defendant. The Appellate Court also
on considering the grounds which have been urged, comes
to the conclusion that trial Court has not committed any
error and considered both oral and documentary evidence
in a proper perspective and has rightly came to the
conclusion that Item No. 1 to 5 and 7 are the ancestral
joint family properties belonging to the plaintiff and
defendants, that the plaintiff is entitled for 5/16th share
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
in Item No.1 to 5 and 7 of the suit schedule properties
and that the registered Partition Deed dated 12.01.2018
executed between the defendants excluding the plaintiff
does not binds her share in the suit schedule properties
and dismissed the appeal.
4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of
both the trial Court and the Appellate Court, the present
second appeal is filed before this Court by defendant Nos.
2 to 4.
5. The main contention of appellants' counsel
before this Court is that both the Courts committed an
error in not appreciating the matter since there is a clear
admission on the part of the plaintiff that Item No. 7 of the
suit schedule property was given to her and also
contended that both Courts committed an error in
answering the issue with regard to the partition dated
12.01.2018 that it is not binding the plaintiff. When once
she has relinquished her share in joint family properties
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
after taking Item No.7 in suit schedule properties and
residing in the house constructed by the defendant's/
appellants, the trial Court ought not to have granted the
relief in respect of Item No.1 to 5 and 7. The counsel also
vehemently contended that when there is a documentary
evidence at Ex.P7 and Ex.D3, which clearly disclose that
there is a mutation in favour of the plaintiff for having
given the share and RTC at Ex.P7 also discloses the entry
which evidences the fact of plaintiff already taking her the
share in the properties and ought not to have granted the
relief of share in the suit schedule properties at Item
No. 1 to 5 and 7.
6. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also
on perusal of material available on record, it is not in
dispute that the properties which have been pleaded as
ancestral properties and also particularly, the counsel
appearing to the appellants submitted that Item No.4 is
the property purchased by the father and counsel
appearing for the appellants also submits that father was
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
working as a Railway Employee and purchased the same in
the year 1998-1999 and when such being the case, the
trial Court and Appellate Court ought not to have granted
the relief in respect of Item No.4. The counsel also
submits that partition has taken place between the father
and sons and when the suit was filed, the father was alive.
When already there was a partition, the trial Court and
also the Appellate Court ought not to have granted the
relief in respect of Item No.4. But the fact that, the other
items of the properties are the joint family properties are
not in dispute.
7. The only main contention of the counsel
appearing for the appellants that Item No. 4 was
purchased during the lifetime of their father, but also
while entering into a partition, the plaintiff was not a
party, but she was excluded at the time of making the
partition and hence, both the Courts have rightly come to
the conclusion that the Partition Deed does not bind the
plaintiff and also when the suit is filed, Item No. 4 is also
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
included and specific defence was taken that it is a self-
acquired property. Even if it is a self-acquired property,
even after filing of the suit also, the father did not execute
any testamentary document in favour of any of the legal
heirs and automatically, Section 8 attracts when the
property belongs to the male member of family dies and
equally entitled for a share in the item No.4 and hence,
the very contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants cannot be accepted.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that plaintiff ought not have
included item No.4 of the properties and the same is the
self acquired property of the father. Such contention also
cannot be accepted. There cannot be any partial partition
also and father died subsequent to the filing of the suit.
Even after filing the suit, no testamentary document is
executed. When such being the case, plaintiff is entitled
for a share in the property left by the father.
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
9. However, the counsel appearing for the
appellants brought to the notice of this Court that Item
No.7 was given to the plaintiff and in that property,
already she has constructed the house and residing
therein and when such submission is made at the time of
partitioning the properties in FDP proceedings, the trial
Court can take note of the said fact into consideration
while making division of the properties in FDP proceedings.
There is some force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants while allotting share in favour
of the plaintiff.
10. Therefore, I do not find any other grounds to
admit and frame any substantial question of law, since
there is concurrent findings and there is no perversity in
the said findings. Hence, no grounds are made out to
admit and frame any substantial question of law by
invoking Section 100 of CPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44315
HC-KAR
11. With the above observation, the appeal is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
tsn*
