Karnataka High Court
Smt. Indramma vs Smt. Kamalamma on 6 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
RSA No. 1619 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1619 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. INDRAMMA,
W/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O BANNUR VILLAGE,
HANGARAVALLI POST,
ALDUR HBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTIRCT-577111.
2. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O KODAGU VILLAGE
NAGANAHALLI POST,
Digitally signed AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
by DEVIKA M HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O RUDRESH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O KODAGU VILLAGE,
NAGANAHALLI POST,
AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
4. SMT. SAROJA,
W/O GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O KODAGU VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
RSA No. 1619 of 2023
HC-KAR
NAGANAHALLI POST,
AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
5. SMT. SAVITHA,
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O KODAGU VILLAGE,
NAGANAHALLI POST,
AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
SRI. ASHOKA,
S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA,
(SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS).
6. NAVYASHREE,
D/O LATE ASHOKA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O THAGARE VILLAGE AND POST,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTIRCT-573215.
7. NITHYASHREE,
D/O LATE ASHOKA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O THAGARE VILLAGE AND POST,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTIRCT-573215.
8. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE ASHOKA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O THAGARE VILLAGE AND POST,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTIRCT-573215.
9. SMT. YASHODHA,
W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O KODAGU VILLAGE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
RSA No. 1619 of 2023
HC-KAR
NAGANAHALLI POST,
AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
10. SRI. NAVEENA,
S/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O BANNUR VILLAGE,
HANGARAVALLI POST,
ALDUR HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577111.
11. SMT. NAYANA,
W/O JAGADISH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O THAGARE VILLAGE AND POST,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573215.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. KAMALAMMA,
W/O LATE RUDREGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. SMT. UMADEVI,
W/O LATE RUDREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O BANNUR VILLAGE,
HANGARAVALLI POST, ALDUR HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577111.
2. SRI. RENUKAYYA @ RENUKA,
S/O LATE RUDREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O BANNUR VILLAGE,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
RSA No. 1619 of 2023
HC-KAR
HANGARAVALLI POST,
ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577111.
3. SRI. RAJASHEKAR @ SHEKHAR,
S/O LATE RUDREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O BANNUR VILLAGE,
HANGARAVALLI POST, ALDUR HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YASHODAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2022
PASSED IN R.A.No.56/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT (DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE) AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.06.2020
PASSED IN O.S.NO.74/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
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. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. This present second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding.
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are
the joint family properties of the defendants and the plaintiffs
and are liable to be partitioned and they are entitled for a
share. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement contending that already there was a partition i.e.,
oral partition and the same was reduced into writing in terms of
Memorandum of Partition as per Ex.D.2 and the suit schedule
properties are her self-acquired properties as the same is
purchased by her under a registered sale deed dated
25.05.1966. The Trial Court framed the additional issues also
that whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties
and for non-inclusion of all the properties.
4. The Trial Court having allowed the parties to lead
evidence, appreciated the admission on the part of D.W.1 and
D.W.2 and also the document of Ex.D.2 that there was already
a partition between the members of the joint family i.e.,
between Rudregowda and Puttaswamygowda, who are the
children of Biliyappa Gowda and the defendants represent the
branch of Rudregowda and the plaintiffs represent the branch
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
HC-KAR
of Puttaswamygowda. The Trial Court also taken note of that in
terms of partition deed Ex.D.2, certain properties are allotted to
the defendants and sold the properties through Exs.D.6, 11,
12, 14, 15 and 17, which clearly establishes the partition
between the parties and the same was acted upon by the entire
family members. It is also observed that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove that suit schedule item Nos.1 to 4 properties are
the joint family properties and Ex.D.6 sale deed, wherein late
H.B. Somegowda @ H.B. Puttaswamygowda, father of the
plaintiffs himself and on behalf of his then minor children who
were impleaded as defendants and later transposed as plaintiff
Nos.4 to 9 have sold Survey No.34 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas
and 10 guntas of wetland, which came to their share as per the
Memorandum of Partition i.e., Ex.D.2. Having considered the
material available on record, the Trial Court in paragraph
Nos.12 and 13 comes to the conclusion that the properties are
not available for partition in view of already there was a
partition and the parties have acted upon it.
5. The First Appellate Court considering the grounds
urged in the appeal memo, re-appreciated both oral and
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
HC-KAR
documentary evidence available on record and taken note of
the admission as well as recitals of the document of Ex.D.2 and
subsequent documents in paragraph Nos.14 and 15. The First
Appellate Court also taken note of that Ex.D.1 is the certified
copy of the sale deed dated 25.05.1966, wherein it is stated
that Rudregowda purchased the properties. The evidence on
record probabilize the case of the defendant that the partition
was effected between Rudregowda and his brothers and after
the partition, they have individually dealt with the properties
and sold some of the properties. The First Appellate Court also
taken note of Ex.D.6 sale deed, wherein the recital is admitted
with regard to the share allotted to the father of the plaintiffs
and dismissed the second appeal.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that both the Courts ignoring Exs.P.11 to
20 committed an error in coming to the conclusion that already
there was a partition and the plaintiffs have not proved the
case in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 of the properties and the
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
HC-KAR
very approach of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court is
erroneous and hence this Court has to admit the appeal and
frame the substantial question of law.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also on perusal of the material available on record,
particularly the pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as the
respondents, it is the contention of the plaintiffs/appellants
before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are the
ancestral properties. The Trial Court taking into note of the
defence of the defendants, framed issue Nos.2 and 3 and
assessed the evidence available on record. In paragraph
Nos.12 and 13 taken note of recital of Ex.D.6 and it is emerged
that the sale deeds are executed in terms of Exs.D.6, 11, 12,
14, 15 and 17. Ex.D.2 evidence the fact of earlier partition and
though it was earlier oral partition, the same was reduced into
writing in terms of Ex.D.2 and also reference was made in
Ex.D.6 that there was a partition and the same was considered
by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court while
considering the material on record and the same is not
perverse. It is settled law that if finding is perverse, second
NC: 2025:KHC:44820
HC-KAR
appeal can be admitted. Apart from that, the question of law is
also taken note of, since there was already a partition and the
parties have acted upon it. When such being the case, the Trial
Court rightly answered issue No.1 in the negative that the
plaintiffs have not proved that the suit schedule properties are
liable to be partitioned. Hence, I do not find any ground to
admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of
law by invoking Section 100 of CPC.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.As, if any, does not survive for consideration
and the same are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
