Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narasimharaju vs Sri. Appaji on 7 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
RSA No. 1423 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1423 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARASIMHARAJU
S/O SRI. LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O KUNTAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE
CHOWDANAKUPPE
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. APPAJI
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S/O SRI LINGAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT NO.6, 4TH 'G' CROSS
KARNATAKA MARUTHI SCHOOL MAIN ROAD
KAMAKSHIPALYA
OPP. OLD KRISHNA I.T.I.
BENGALURU-560 079.
2. SRI. B. MASTHIGOWDA
S/O LATE SRI. SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O C/O SUNDARESH
NO.53/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD
MAGADI ROAD
KOTTIGEPALYA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
RSA No. 1423 of 2024
HC-KAR
OPP. GANESHA TEMPLE
BENGALURU-560 091.
3. SMT. M. HEMALATHA
W/O SRI. APPAJI,
D/O SRI. MASTHIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14
AVVANNA NERALU
INDIRA COLONY
CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU-560 091.
4. SMT. M. VIDYA
W/O SRI. SHANKAR
D/O SRI. MASTHIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.14
AVVANNA NERALU
INDIRA COLONY
CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU-560 091.
5. SMT. M. ROOPA
W/O SRI. SWAMY
D/O SRI MASTHIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O C/O SUNDARESH
NO.53/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD
MAGADI ROAD
KOTTIGEPALYA
OPP. GANESHA TEMPLE
BENGALURU-560 091.
6. SRI. M. MANJUNATH
S/O SRI. MASTHIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O C/O SUNDARESH,
NO.53/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
RSA No. 1423 of 2024
HC-KAR
MAGADI ROAD
KOTTIGEPALYA
OPP. GANESHA TEMPLE
BENGALURU-560091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.129/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL.
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. I have heard learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveator-
respondent No.1.
2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that
defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2. He
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
had two wives, plaintiff is the son through first wife and
defendant No.2 is the son through second wife. The suit
schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of
plaintiff and defendants. The defendant No.1 had mortgaged
the suit item Nos.5 to 7 on 24.02.1975 for Rs.1,500/- in favour
of one Nanjundaiah @ Mugaiah, son of Marigowda of
Kaduboranapalya. Out of the mortgage money, the defendant
No.1 has purchased the suit item No.1 from Huchaiah with an
intention to defeat the right of plaintiff and registered the same
in the name of Honnamma, the mother of defendant No.2 and
the second wife of defendant No.1. The amount invested to
purchase is the mortgage money received out of mortgage of
joint family properties. Hence, item No.1 is the joint family
property of the plaintiff and defendants. The suit item No.2 is
the grant in the name of defendant No.1 for and on behalf of
joint family. The defendant No.1 sold the ancestral house and
purchased suit item No.3. As such, suit schedule properties are
ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants.
However, defendant No.1 and mother of defendant No.2-
Smt.Honnamma in collusion created the gift deed on suit item
No.1 in favour of defendant No.1 and 23.02.2006, is not
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
binding on the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are trying
to sell the suit schedule properties. Hence, filed the suit for the
relief of partition when an attempt was made by the defendants
to sell the suit schedule properties.
4. The defendants appeared and filed written
statement admitting the relationship of plaintiff and defendants
and suit item Nos.4 to 7 are ancestral properties of plaintiff and
defendants. Specifically submitted suit item No.1 is the self-
acquired property of Honnamma, mother of defendant No.2 and
second wife of defendant No.1. It is their contention that she
has purchased the same under registered sale deed dated
24.02.1975 and sale consideration was paid by Honnamma by
selling 5 sheeps and 6 goats which were given to her soon after
marriage from her parental home. It is also contented that a
gift deed was executed in favour of defendant No.2 on
23.02.2006. Accordingly, the defendant No.2 is in possession of
suit item No.1 as absolute owner. The suit item No.2 was a
government land, defendant No.2 and his wife Honnamma was
cultivating unauthorisingly as Bagar Hukum Saguvalidar and
they filed an application before the Land Grant Committee
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
seeking grant, the same was allowed in 2002. The suit item
No.2 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and
mother of defendant No.2 and suit item No.3 was purchased by
defendant No.1 out of his own earnings. Hence, not entitled for
the relief of partition and separate possession as sought.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is
entitled for a share over the property by answering issue No.1
and answered all other issues as 'negative'. However, granted
4/9th share each in suit Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the suit
schedule properties.
6. The said judgment and decree of the Trial Court is
challenged before the First Appellate court by filing an appeal in
R.A.No.67/2019. The First Appellate Court having reconsidered
the material available on record, considering the grounds urged
in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the Trial
Court committed an error in answering issue Nos.2 and 4 as
'negative' holding that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and
defendants and whether it requires interference. The First
Appellate Court also on reconsideration of both oral and
documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that by
pledging the property, item No.1 was purchased out of the
mortgage amount and though item No.2 is a granted land, got
sanctioned the same in the name of defendant No.2 only with
an intention to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. Hence,
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by
the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before
this Court.
7. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have
misinterpreted the provisions of Section 14(c) of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and when the property belongs to a
woman, the same becomes absolute property of the woman
and she has disposed of the property by executing a document.
Hence, the very approach of both the Courts is erroneous and
committed an error in granting the relief.
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
caveator-respondent No.1 would submit that both the Courts
having considered the material available on record rightly
comes to the conclusion that, in order to acquire item No.1 of
the property, other ancestral properties are mortgaged and on
the same day, property was purchased. Hence, rightly comes to
the conclusion that no ground is made out and First Appellate
Court comes to such a conclusion considering the material
available on record and particularly, Trial Court also taken note
of the said fact into consideration.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for caveator-
respondent No.1 and also the reasoning given by Trial Court,
the Trial Court in detail discussed that at the time of purchasing
the property, mother of defendant No.2 was not having any
independent income. Apart from that, the Trial Court also taken
note of mortgage deed dated 24.02.1975 i.e. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8-
Sale deed dated 24.02.1975 and also taken note of the specific
pleading made by the plaintiff that out of the mortgage
amount, the property was purchased. The Trial Court further
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
taken note of the circumstances under which the document of
gift deed was executed on 23.02.2006 i.e., only in order to
defeat the claim of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on
record. The Trial Court also taken note of the grant of property
in favour of the second wife of defendant No.1 and while
considering the material on record also, though it is a specific
contention of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that it was a self-acquired
property of the mother i.e. item Nos.1 and 2, the same was
considered. The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.50
taken note of the fact that mother was not having any
independent income and grant is also made in favour of the
joint family and not in the individual capacity. Hence, I do not
find any error on the part of the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court in granting the relief and the very contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in respect
of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, the very
approach made by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court is erroneous cannot be accepted. Both Courts have taken
note of factual aspects and given fact finding based on oral and
documentary evidence and question of law is also considered.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45223
HC-KAR
Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal
and frame any substantial question of law.
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
