Karnataka High Court
Sri T Rangappa vs B R Ashoka on 10 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
RSA No. 1770 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1770 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T. RANGAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE
B-DURGA HOBLI
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.R. ASHOKA
S/O T. RANGAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
by DEVIKA M AGRICULTURIST
Location: HIGH RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE
COURT OF B-DURGA HOBLI
KARNATAKA HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. B.R. KAVITHA
D/O T. RANGAPPA
W/O AJJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O RANGAVVANAHALLI VILLAGE
B-DURGA HOBLI
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
RSA No. 1770 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. KRISHNAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE
B-DURGA HOBLI
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI. B.R. ARUNKUMAR
S/O T RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE
B-DURGA HOBLI
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.17/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.23/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOLALKERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
RSA No. 1770 of 2024
HC-KAR
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
property belongs to the family of the plaintiff and plaintiff is
entitled for 1/4th share over the suit schedule properties.
4. The defendant No.3 in the written statement claims
that she is entitled for 1/4th share over the suit schedule
properties and the defendant No.1 also contend that suit
schedule 'B' and 'C' properties are his self-acquired properties
and plaintiff is not entitled for the relief.
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as
'affirmative', in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff and
defendant No.3 are entitled for 1/4th share and suit is dismissed
in respect of item No.3 of the 'C' schedule property. Hence,
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
HC-KAR
partly decreed the suit accepting the contention of defendant
No.3 while answering additional issue No.2, as she has claimed
the counter claim. But answered additional issue No.1 as
'negative' with regard to the claim that suit schedule 'B' and 'C'
properties are his self-acquired properties and granted the
relief of partition as 1/4th share.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed
before the First Appellate Court by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The
First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged
in the appeal, formulated the points whether the Trial Court
committed an error in appreciating the evidence in coming to
the conclusion that family properties are the joint family
properties and whether the 'B' and 'C' schedule properties are
the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and whether it
requires interference of the Appellate Court. The First Appellate
Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 as 'negative'. However, while
answering point No.3 comes to the conclusion that Trial Court
rightly arrived at the conclusion that except item No.3 of the 'C'
schedule property, it does not require any interference and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
HC-KAR
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that specific defence was taken that
'B' and 'C' schedule properties are self-acquired properties of
the defendant and both the Courts have committed an error
and particularly, the admission of P.W.1 that he had been
allotted arecanut and coconut trees as his share in the previous
partition and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were
not justified in not considering the fact that plaintiff was only
14 years old at the time of purchasing the 'B' schedule property
and the same was not taken note of. Hence, it requires
interference of this Court by admitting the second appeal and
framing the substantial question of law.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also the grounds which have been urged in the second appeal
to frame the substantial question of law, the Trial Court
considering both oral and documentary evidence comes to the
conclusion that the properties are joint family properties and
the same is also not seriously disputed by the defendant,
except contending that 'B' and 'C' schedule properties are the
separate properties and in order to establish the same, nothing
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
HC-KAR
is placed on record that the same are self-acquired properties.
However, Trial Court also rightly considered the counter claim
made by defendant No.3 in respect of item No.3 of the 'C'
schedule property and the suit was dismissed in respect of the
said claim, in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is not
entitled for any relief in respect of item No.3 of the 'C' schedule
property. When both oral and documentary evidence is
considered by the Trial Court and in the absence of any proof
with regard to 'B' and 'C' schedule properties are the self-
acquired properties as contented by the appellant, I do not find
any ground to admit the second appeal and frame substantial
question of law. Both the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court have considered the question of fact and
question of law and in the absence of any perversity with
regard to appreciation of evidence and the only contention is
that plaintiff was 14 years old at the time of purchasing the
property and the fact that he is a member of the family and the
property belongs to joint family is not disputed. Hence, I do not
find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:45511
HC-KAR
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
