Karnataka High Court
Shanthamma vs Kolluramma on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
RSA No. 1587 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1587 OF 2024 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O MALLAPPA
RESIDENT OF RATTEHALLI
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 416.
ALSO A RESIDENT OF
CHANNAMUMBAPUR VILLAGE
ABBALAGERE POST
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 225.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI. VAGEESHA N., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. KOLLURAMMA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI. KUNTE HANUMANTHAPPA
2. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. KUNTE HANUMANTHAPPA
3. NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
RSA No. 1587 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. KAMALA
W/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
THE RESIDENTS OF CHANNAMUMBAPUR VILLAGE
ABBALAGERE POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 225.
5. VINUTHA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O MUKUNDA BADAL
RESIDENT OF SRI VITAL TEMPLE ROAD
SHARAVATHI NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
6. MANU P. KUMAR
W/O PREETHAM KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O SINCHANA
MAIN PARALLEL ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.115/2019 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, C/C IIND ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA., DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1031/2012 ON THE FILE
OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
RSA No. 1587 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while
seeking the relief of declaration and partition is that sale deed
dated 05.06.2000 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff.
Hence, she is entitled for 1/5th share and contend that mother
had sold the property and the same came to her knowledge
recently. Hence, she filed the suit.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement contending that they are the bonafide purchasers of
the suit schedule properties and the suit is barred by limitation
and the plaintiff has not proved that the sale deed dated
05.06.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant Nos.5 and 6 is not binding on the share of the
plaintiff and all these aspects were taken note of by the Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
HC-KAR
Court particularly, admission elicited from the mouth of P.W.1
which was culled out in paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the
Trial Court, wherein she categorically admitted that, earlier also
father had applied for permission to sell the property and in the
meanwhile, father passed away and thereafter, mother sold the
property which is also for family necessity. She also
categorically admitted that she came to know about the sale 10
years ago and she could not file the suit immediately. It is
further admitted that in the said sale deed, the brother i.e.
defendant No.2 and her sisters' i.e., defendant Nos.3 and 4
have also signed. Having taken note of the admissions of
P.W.1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 had
the knowledge about the sale transaction and subsequently,
filed the suit and though the sale was made in 2002, suit was
filed in 2012 and all these factors have been taken note of and
dismissed the suit in respect of item No.1 of schedule 'A'
property and granted the relief in respect of other property i.e.,
item No.2 in schedule 'A' property.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.115/2019. The
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
HC-KAR
First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged
in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial
Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and whether it
requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court
having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence
available on record, answered the points as 'negative' and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, wherein also the
First Appellate Court exercised its statutory powers while
considering the first appeal as a original suit and re-appreciated
both oral and documentary evidence, including Exs.P1 and P2
i.e., copies of the registered sale deeds dated 05.06.2000 and
also taken note of the recitals in the document in Ex.P1. Apart
from that, admissions of P.W.1 was also taken note of by the
First Appellate Court and applied its judicious mind and
dismissed the appeal.
6. Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
this second appeal would vehemently contend that both the
Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and this
Court has to frame the substantial questions of law whether the
Courts below were right in applying Section 6 of the Hindu
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
HC-KAR
Sections Act instead of Section 8 of the Act when the Courts
below have given a finding that the suit schedule properties
were the self-acquired properties of the father of the appellant
and whether the Courts below were right in applying Article 59
of the Limitation Act instead of applying Article 110 of the Act,
insofar as the suit of partition and for separate possession is
concerned. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and
frame the substantial question of law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also on perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiff, she has
categorically stated that suit schedule properties are ancestral
and joint family properties and also admitted that sale was
made in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 by defendant No.1 in
respect of suit item No.1 of the property. It is the specific case
of the plaintiff before the Court that sale deed dated
05.06.2000 executed in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 is not
binding on her share. Having considered this ground as well as
the defence taken by the defendants and also the answer
elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 which has been culled out in
paragraph No.18, categorical admissions are given that her
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
HC-KAR
father was intending to sell the property and sought permission
and in the meanwhile, he passed away and then, her mother
sold the property and the mother was not having any income to
lead the family and property was sold. Hence, it is very clear
that property was sold for the family necessity. Apart from that,
she categorically admits that her brother as well as her two
sisters are also signatories to the said sale deed and
categorically admitted that she was aware of the sale 10 years
ago and suit was filed in 2012 and sale was made in 2000 and
there was an inordinate delay.
8. Having taken note of the admission on the part of
P.W.1 and also the recitals in the document of Exs.P1 and P2,
the First Appellate Court discussed while re-appreciating the
material available on record taken note of recitals of the
document i.e. documentary evidence as well as admission on
the part of P.W.1 during the course of her cross-examination.
When there is an admission on the part of plaintiff that her
mother had sold the property for family necessity and the very
admission takes away the case of the plaintiff for granting the
relief in respect of item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property and
NC: 2025:KHC:44687
HC-KAR
when the property was sold by the mother for the family
necessity and the same was within the knowledge of P.W.1 and
the suit was filed belatedly in 2012, the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court rightly rejected the claim in respect of
item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property. Hence, I do not find any
ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial
question of law as contented by learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and no grounds are made out to admit the second
appeal and frame any substantial question of law by invoking
Section 100 of C.P.C.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
