Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ambarish vs Sri Krishnappa on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
RSA No. 890 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 890 OF 2019
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K AMBARISH
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SMT K KAMALA
D/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. SMT K PADMA
Digitally signed D/O KRISHNAPPA
by PANKAJA S
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SMT K MANJULA
D/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
RSA No. 890 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. SRI YELLAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
3. SRI LAKSHMAIAH
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
4. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
5. SMT MAMATHA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41YEARS,
6. SMT KOMALA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
7. SRI LOKESH
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
8. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
9. SMT VANITHA
D/O LATE KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
RSA No. 890 of 2019
HC-KAR
10. SRI HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
11. SHWETHA
D/O LATE KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 11
ARE R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106
12. SRI C RAMESH
S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 EYARS,
R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE
VARTHURU HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.
13. SRI B.B NAGABHUSHANA
S/O B.M VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.124, BELLANDURU VILLAGE,
VARTHURU HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.
14. THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.
15. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-586 123.
16. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
RSA No. 890 of 2019
HC-KAR
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
17. SRI K PRASANNA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R14 TO 16
A2-TRANSPOSED AS R17 VIDE ORDER DATED
25.10.2024)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2018
PASSED IN RA.NO.97/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.2496/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ANEKAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
RSA No. 890 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of
suit schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule
property was the joint family and ancestral property of the
plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. Initially, the suit
schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiffs'
grandfather one Muniswamappa under family partition.
Subsequently, the partition took place between the said
Muniswamappa and his five sons-defendant Nos.1 to 5
vide Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 - EX.P1 and under
the said partition, the suit schedule property was allotted
to the share of defendant No.1-father of the plaintiffs.
Defendant Nos.1 to 5 colluded with a dishonest intention
sold the property to defendant Nos.6 and 7 under a
nominal Sale Deed dated 04.10.1995 to avoid the
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
HC-KAR
plaintiffs' rightful share. Hence, the plaintiffs preferred the
suit for the aforesaid relief.
4. However, defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed written
statement and denied the plaint averments by contending
that though the suit schedule property is the ancestral and
joint family property, the plaintiffs were not in peaceful
possession of the suit schedule property. Further, it is
contended that the plaintiffs by creating an unregistered
Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 - EX.P1 claimed their
right, title, interest over the suit schedule property, which
is inadmissible evidence. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss
the suit of the plaintiffs.
5. The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and
after considering the evidence and documents placed on
record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that
since the plaintiffs are claiming their title through Ex-P1 -
unregistered Partition Deed, their title cannot be declared
based on such an inadmissible document and on the said
ground itself the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
HC-KAR
declaration of title as claimed by them. Further, the
plaintiffs alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed a
Sale Deed in favour of defendant Nos. 6 and 7. On perusal
of the certified copy of the said Sale Deed, it is seen that
one Muniswamappa s/o Kakaiah has executed the Sale
Deed in favour of defendant Nos.6 and 7. It is clear from
the recital of the said Sale Deed that the suit schedule
property belongs to Muniswamappa, who is none other
than the grandfather of the plaintiffs and father of
defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the khata was standing in his
name and he sold the suit schedule property for the family
necessities and same has been accepted by defendant
Nos.1 to 5. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit
of the plaintiffs.
6. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re-
appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the
findings of the Trial Court and held that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court and the unregistered Partition Deed which
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
HC-KAR
is an inadmissible document itself is the sole ground to
reject the plaintiffs' claim and there are no good grounds
to remand the matter to the Trial Court as prayed by the
plaintiffs and accordingly, confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court.
7. As could be seen from records, the plaintiffs, being
the children of defendant No.1, claims right over the suit
schedule property relying on the unregistered Partition
Deed dated 23.06.1995 in respect of the suit schedule
property allegedly executed between defendant Nos. 1 to
5. Even though it is clearly barred under law to mark the
unregistered Partition Deed, the said unregistered Partition
Deed was marked in evidence as per Ex.P1 subject to the
condition for payment of duty and penalty. However, the
plaintiffs had not paid any duty or penalty on the said
document. When such being the facts and circumstance of
the case, the right of the plaintiffs under unregistered
Partition Deed is not proved. During the lifetime of
Muniswamappa, he along with his children i.e., defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
HC-KAR
Nos. 1 to 5 sold the suit schedule property to defendant
Nos. 6 and 7 as per the Sale Deed dated 04.10.1995 -
Ex.P2. On perusal of Ex.P2, the same depicts that
Muniswamappa was the vendor and defendant Nos. 1 to 5
were the witnesses to the said Sale Deed. When defendant
No.1, i.e., the father of the plaintiffs himself has witnessed
the execution of the Sale Deed - Ex.P2, the plaintiffs
cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property
under the unregistered Partition Deed. In this view of the
matter, I am of the considered view that both the Courts
have correctly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
cannot be declared as owners of the suit schedule property
based on the unregistered Partition Deed and as such,
they have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit
schedule property as the property originally belonged to
their grandfather one Muniswamappa who sold the
property along with his children i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 5
in favour of defendant Nos. 6 and 7.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45094
HC-KAR
8. In my view, there is absolutely no question of law,
muchless substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
