Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh D G vs Sri T G Govindappa on 7 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 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.83 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH D.G.,
S/O LATE T.GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESDENT OF NO.4076/10
10TH MAIN M.C.C. 'B' BLOCK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. T.G. GOVINDAPPA
Digitally signed S/O LATE T. GANGADHARAPPA,
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. T.G. THIPPESH
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE T.GANGADHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT N.M.C., LEFT SIDE
HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK.
3. SRI. T.G. MADAN KUMAR
S/O LATE T. GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENT OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
SANNAKURUBARA BEEDHI
NEAR NAGANAVADI
OLD TOWN
BHADRAVATHI-TALUK.
4. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
W/O ASHOKA RAO
D/O T. GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O NO.624/104
4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS
ANJANEYA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE CITY.
5. SRI. PUNDALIKA
S/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. SRI.GURURAJ
S/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
7. PADMAVATHI
D/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT NEAR LOVELY TAILOR
LIKKERI ROAD, SAGAR
SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR.
8. SRI. VENKATESH D.,
S/O T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O SRI BHAVANI NILAYA
SIDDARUDA NAGAR
NEAR SHANKAR MUTT
2ND CROSS
BHADRAVATHI TALUK.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. SMT. T. SUDHA
W/O GOPAL T.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
10. SRI. NAGESH
S/O GOPAL T.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
11. SRI. GIRISH
S/O GOPAL T.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
12. SMT. AMBIKA
D/O GOPAL T.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
13. SMT. BHAVANI
D/O GOPALA T.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.334,
1ST MAIN, CHS PRAGATHI SCHOOL OPP.
4TH STAGE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560064.
14. SRI. T. GOVINDA RAO
S/O T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O RAGHAVENDRA TAILOR
BHANDIPALYA (GARVIPALYA)
HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU-560068.
15. SRI. VITTLA
S/O T.BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O GANGAPARAMESHWARI BEEDI
THOKADAM TEMPLE ROAD
SAGAR.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 of 2024
HC-KAR
16. SMT. SHARADA BAI
W/O VINAYAKA RAO V. TAKRE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O P.N.53/A, 48/B2
SHHUNAGAR
BELAGAM CITY.
17. SMT. CHANDRAMATHI
D/O T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
C/O PREMAKUMAR
NAVAGRAMA
TALAGOPPA POST
TALAGOPPA
SAGAR TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10010/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA,
SITTING AT SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.144/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
RSA No. 83 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 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 his mother and one late Gangadharappa @ T.
Gangadhara Rao was his father and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are
his brothers and defendant No.5 is his sister. Defendant Nos.6
and defendant No.11 is his sister-in-law and defendant Nos.7
and 9 are the children of defendant No.6 and late Ranganath.
Defendant Nos.12 to 15 are the children of defendant No.11
and late Gopala T. The defendant Nos.10, 16, 17 are his cousin
brothers and defendant Nos.18 and 19 are his cousin sisters.
The plaintiff and defendants are related through blood and they
belong to Hindu Undivided Joint Family. It is contented that suit
schedule property stands in the name of father of defendant
Nos.10, 16 to 19 and father-in-law of defendant Nos.6 and 11
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
and grandfather of defendant Nos.7 to 9, 12 to 15. It is
contented that suit schedule property is an ancestral property
which belongs to both plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff's
grandfather Govinddappa, S/o. Shatojappa and 4 children
namely, Basappa, father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19,
Tulajappa @ Chinnappa, Shatojappa and Gangadharappa,
father of plaintiff. As of now, the suit schedule property is
standing in the name of Basappa, father of defendant Nos.10,
16 to 19. It is further submitted that the second son Tulajappa
@ Chinnappa got his share during the year 1950 and 3rd son
Shatojappa relinquished his share in the joint family property
through the relinquishment deed dated 22.06.1942. Since
these second and third sons have got their share and
relinquished the right over the suit property, they and their
legal representatives are not arrayed as party to the suit.
4. It is contended that grandfather of plaintiff had
purchased the property on 05.04.1942 from its previous vendor
Rangadol Shatoji Rao, S/o. Shatojappa for valuable
consideration of Rs.200/- in the name of his elder son T.
Basappa and thereafter, sale deed got registered before the
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
Sub-registrar, Sagar. He purchased a vacant site measuring
about 22.5 feet width x Government drainage to Kambli Mutt
Hittalu. After that, Khatha was transferred from Valagada
Pakirappa to T.Basappa. From then, till date, the khatha of the
property stood in the name of T. Basappa. It is further
contended that after purchasing the suit schedule property,
grandfather of the plaintiff got constructed 3 ankana, 2 portion
Mangalore tiled house in the vacant site. To meet the family
crisis, they pledged the suit property to one Gojanur
Channappa Shetty and brothers for consideration amount of
Rs.1,300/- by executing simple mortgage deed in favour of him
along with other brothers and the said document was duly
registered before the Sub-registrar, Sagar under
S.R.No.136/1944-45 dated 22.08.1944 which was registered on
30.08.1944. Since, the rate of interest was very much higher
than other society, the grandfather of the plaintiff and his
father and uncle mortgaged the suit schedule property to
Ganapathy Urban Co-operative Society, Sagar Branch and
obtained a loan of Rs.2,500/-. Thereafter, executed a mortgage
deed in favour of Ganapathy Urban Co-operative Society during
the year 1944 and subsequently got cancelled the earlier
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
mortgage deed dated 22.08.1944. It is also contented that in
the year 1950 there was no oral partition between the family
members. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition in
the ancestral property and prayed 1/6th share.
5. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared and filed their
written statement claiming that they are also entitled for 1/6th
share. Defendant No.10 contend that father of plaintiff has
already relinquished his share as per registered partition dated
28.02.1954.
6. The Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the
parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both
oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 as
'negative' and issue No.5 as 'affirmative', in coming to the
conclusion that already there was a partition in the year 1954
itself and also taken note of admission on the part of witness
that no existence of joint family between the plaintiff and
defendants considering the admission of P.W.1 and also taken
note of evidence of D.W.1 and dismissed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.10010/2022. The First Appellate Court also having
considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated
the point whether the findings given by the Trial Court on all
the issues are perverse, capricious, arbitrary and based without
proper appreciation of evidence. The First Appellate Court also
having reassessed the material available on record not
accepted the contention of the plaintiff and particularly in
paragraph No.20 discussed regarding the relationship between
the parties, as there is an admission that there is no such joint
family in existence and also taken note of marking of document
Ex.D1 i.e., partition deed of the year 1954 and confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
finding of both the Courts, present second appeal is filed before
this Court.
8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellant before this Court is that though document
Ex.D1 is marked, the same is only a secondary evidence and
the same ought not to have been relied upon by the Trial Court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
and the First Appellate Court. Hence, both the Courts have
committed an error in relying upon the document Ex.D1. The
counsel also would contend that both the Courts erred in
ignoring the document Ex.P10 which is the proof of only oral
partition which has not been acted upon and inspite of it, the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in
dismissing the suit and the appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also on perusal of the reasons assigned in the
judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court,
the Trial Court taken note of the document of Ex.D1, the
registered partition deed executed in the year 1954 itself
between the father of the plaintiff and other family members
which is also a registered document. The counsel would
contend that the said document is only a secondary document
which was placed before the Trial Court and not the original
document. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
taken note of the fact that the said document was registered
document and at the time of marking the document, not
disputed the same. Apart from that, even in paragraph No.22,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
discussed the evidence of P.W.1, wherein also categorically
admits that in between the plaintiff and defendants, there is no
existence of joint family and though a suggestion was made to
P.W.1 that there was a partition dated 01.03.1954 and says
that he is not aware of the same, but not denies the same.
Apart from that taken note of the fact that other legal heirs
were also not arrayed as defendants in the suit i.e. the legal
heirs of T. Basappa, since T. Basappa was also having 3
daughters and in detail the Trial Court considered the material
on record. When the documents are placed before the Court
and the said document is also a registered document, there is
no status of joint family existing among them is also considered
in paragraph No.23 and in paragraph No.24 in detail discussed
the same.
10. Even, the First Appellate Court also, while
considering the grounds urged by the appellant/plaintiff,
particularly in paragraph No.20, taken note that P.W.1
admitted regarding the fact that no existence of joint family
between him and defendants. Apart from that, document of
Ex.D1 is also discussed in detail. D.W.1 was also cross-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
examined by the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff, wherein
in his cross-examination, it is elicited that his grandfather had
purchased suit schedule property in his father's name and no
dispute with regard to the said fact and earlier also, there was
a partition in the year 1950, but the material clearly discloses
that in the year 1954, a partition has taken place between the
plaintiff's father and also said T.Basappa. When such material is
available before the Court, the very contention of learned
counsel for the appellant that the said document is only a
secondary evidence and not produced the primary evidence and
original document cannot be accepted. The Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that when
the document was marked, the same was not objected and it is
also settled law that, if the document is marked without any
objection at the time of marking, later, the party cannot take
that stand. Having considered the material and once when
there was a partition in the year 1954 itself and though learned
counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend
that there was only a oral partition in the year 1950 and the
same is not for metes and bounds and when the demand was
made with the children of T.Basappa, they refused to make the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45224
HC-KAR
partition and the said contention cannot be accepted having
considered the document of Ex.D1 which came into existence in
the year 1954 itself. 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
