Karnataka High Court
Smt Siddagangamma vs Sri Bylappa on 10 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
RSA No. 2026 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2026 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA,
D/O LATE BYLAPPA,
W/O MANOHAR S.H.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
REISIDING AT
HALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADHURE HOBLI,
DODABALLAPURA TALUK.
AT PRESENT R/AT
CHIKKABOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
PIN: 560 067.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. BYLAPPA,
S/O MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
HALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADHURE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
PIN: 560 106.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
RSA No. 2026 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. SRI. HUCHANNA,
S/O LATE GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALLOHALLI VILLAGE,
MADHURE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
PIN: 560 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.08.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.347/2011
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA.
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 appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.347/2011 and also against
the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.10/2020 confirming
the judgment of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that originally the property belongs to the father
and the father had purchased the property in the year 1967
i.e., through sale deed dated 17.05.1967. It is contended that
the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the absolute owners and in
possession of the suit schedule properties and khatha and
pahani of the said properties stands in the name of ancestors of
the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The suit schedule item No.1
property originally purchased by the plaintiff's father Bylappa
and till today there is no any partition in the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds. Therefore, the plaintiff is
entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. It is also
the contention that the plaintiff's father late Bylappa had wife
by name Kempamma and had two children by name Mariyappa,
who is no more and Siddagangamma i.e., the plaintiff. The
defendant No.1 Bylappa is the only son of deceased Mariyappa.
The defendant No.2 is a stranger to the joint family. On
20.07.2011 when the plaintiff was cultivating the suit schedule
property, the defendants tried to interfere and tried to
dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and on
questioning the same, the defendants claims that sale deed
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
was executed by Kempamma in favour of defendant No.2. The
defendants refused to give share in favour of the plaintiff and
hence the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement
contending that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. The
plaintiff neither has locus-standi nor have right of any kind to
file the suit for partition. The defendant No.1 admitted that the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the absolute owners and are in
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.1
property. The defendant No.1 also admitted that the suit
schedule item No.2 property was purchased by Bylappa S/o
Hanumanthaiah under a registered sale deed dated 17.05.1967
from Eregowda and Puttamma. Ever since from the date of
purchase, Bylappa and his family members are cultivating the
said property. The defendant No.1 also admitted that pedigree
of their family as stated by the plaintiff is true. However,
contend that there is no cause of action for the suit. The
alleged cause of action is created and the relief prayed by the
plaintiff cannot be granted. The defendant No.1 contented that
on 17.11.1997, Kempamma executed a registered sale deed in
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule item No.1
property. In the said sale deed, it is mentioned that the said
property was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of
Kempamma and she was in exclusive possession of the same.
But the said land was not granted in favour of Kempamma by
the Land Tribunal. The defendant No.2 is not in possession of
the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 never derived
any right in pursuance of the alleged sale deed dated
17.11.1997. However, claims that both the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 are in joint possession of the suit schedule
property.
5. The defendant No.2 filed the written statement
contending that suit itself is not maintainable and the plaintiff
has not approached the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff
suppressed the true material facts and she is claiming half
share. It is contended that the suit schedule property was
purchased by defendant No.2 for valuable consideration after
verifying all the necessary documents. It is contended that the
land was granted in favour of Kempamma in LRF No.205/1975-
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
76 and the said Kempamma executed the sale deed and hence
the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for half
share in the suit schedule property and also additional issue is
framed consequent upon the defence taken by defendant No.2
that whether defendant No.2 proves that Smt.Kempamma has
sold the suit item No.1 for her family necessity? The plaintiff in
order to prove her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and also
examined four witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.5. The defendant
No.2 examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two witnesses
as D.W.2 and D.W.3. The Trial Court having considered the
documents of Exs.P.1 to 30 and Exs.D.1 to 39, answered issue
No.1 partly in the affirmative and answered the additional issue
in the affirmative and decreed the suit in part granting relief in
respect of item No.2 of the property and not granted any relief
in respect of item No.1 of the property.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.10/2020. The First
Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
appeal memo, formulated the point whether the Trial Court
committed an error in declining to grant the relief in respect of
item No.1 of the property and whether it requires interference
of this Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the
material available on record, particularly the admission on the
part of P.W.1, who claims that the property belongs to the
family and it is an ancestral property, which is extracted in the
judgment itself in paragraph No.24, comes to the conclusion
that the property was granted in favour of Kempamma and the
same is admitted. The First Appellate Court, in paragraph
No.32 taken note of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and
held that Kempamma becomes the absolute owner under
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court. In paragraph No.38, made an
observation that suit item No.1 was granted by the Tahsildar in
favour of Kempamma. As per Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, even a property which is purchased or granted
in the name of female becomes her absolute property and she
has sold the property during her lifetime and confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take
note of the sale deed dated 17.05.1967 executed by its
erstwhile owner Eregowda and Puttamma, since it is the
absolute property of the appellant's late father Bylappa and the
appellant is not getting her half equal share as that of son in
the light of amendment to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession
Act by the Central Government as it is not correct. Whether
both the Courts are justified that the mother of the appellant
would become absolute owner in LRF No.205/1975-76 on the
file of the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura for granting of
occupancy right in favour of appellant's mother late
Kempamma and from her, respondent No.2 had purchased the
property dated 17.11.1997. Whether both the Courts are
justified that sale deed dated 17.05.1967 as it is not absolute
registered sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner Eregowda
and Puttamma and hence it requires interference of this Court
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
and the matter may be admitted and frame substantial
question of law.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt,
suit is filed by one of the daughter of Kempamma in
O.S.No.347/2011 and claim is made based on the sale deed
dated 17.05.1967. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that
the sale was made in the year 1997 and the suit was filed in
the year 2011 after 14 years of sale made by the mother. It is
also important to note that the plaintiff is also having a brother
and he is no more. However, the brother had left defendant
No.1 as his son. No doubt, defendant No.1 also filed the
written statement, but the material clearly discloses that it is
the specific contention of defendant No.2 in the written
statement that sale was made for the family necessity and also
the fact that when the sale deed was executed in the year
1997, possession of the property was parted with in terms of
the sale deed, which is marked as Ex.D.5 dated 17.11.1997.
Both the Courts have taken note of the recitals made in the
document of sale deed, wherein Kempamma has claimed that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
the land was granted in her favour in terms of the copy of the
order passed in LRF No.205/1975-76 Ex.D.2 and also Ex.D.1
true copy of statement in LRF No.205/1975-76. When the
plaintiff was cross-examined, she categorically admitted that
the land was granted in favour of Kempamma and the same is
extracted in paragraph No.24 of the judgment of the First
Appellate Court. It is contended by defendant No.2 that
property was granted in favour of Kempamma as per the grant
certificate Ex.D.6 and Exs.D.7 and 8 are the mutation register
extracts. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that as per the
order of LRF No.205/1975-76, the suit item No.1 property was
mutated in the name of the deceased Kempamma. On perusal
of the sale deed dated 17.11.1997, which is marked as Ex.D.5,
recitals disclose that Kempamma mentioned suit item No.1
property was allotted to her by way of a grant and the same is
discussed in detail in paragraph No.24 of the First Appellate
Court order.
11. The Trial Court while considering the case of the
plaintiff, in detail discussed in paragraph No.30 that the sale
deed further reveals that one Mariyappa S/o Bylappa and Smt.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
Channamma W/o Mariyappa have signed the said sale deed as
witnesses and comes to the conclusion that on perusal of the
recitals of Ex.D.5 sale deed, it reveals that for family necessity,
Kempamma alienated the suit item No.1 property. Mariyappa,
son of Kempamma and his wife are also the attesting
witnesses. In paragraph No.31, the Trial Court taken note of
Ex.D.5 sale deed and extent of 3 acres 7 guntas are sold in
favour of defendant No.2 and also taken note of Ex.D.6 LRF
grant order. The Trial Court also made an observation that
when the sale was made in the year 1997 itself, it has got its
presumptive evidentiary value and even taken note of as per
Article 110 of Limitation Act, plaintiff has got 12 years time to
challenge the alienation made by Kempamma. But, the suit
was filed after 14 years and limitation starts from the date and
the exclusion become known to the plaintiff. Both the Courts
have taken note of both the question of fact and question of
law. When such being the case, the material clearly discloses
that grant was made in favour of Kempamma by LRF. P.W.1
categorically admits that an application was filed before the
Tribunal by Kempamma herself before granting the same and
the statement was also made in terms of Ex.D.1 and all these
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
factors were taken note of. When such being the case, I do not
find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court in considering the material available on record and the
suit was filed after 14 years of sale made by the mother in the
year 1997. Both question of law i.e., limitation as well as right,
which the plaintiff is having is also taken note of by the Trial
Court both in respect of sale made by the mother for legal
necessity and also the son and daughter-in-law of Kempamma,
who are also attesting witnesses to the document of Ex.D.5
sale deed and it appears that the plaintiff is set-up subsequent
to the sale made, which was made 14 years ago to file a suit
for the relief of partition. When such being the case, the very
contention of the plaintiff that she is entitled for the relief of
half share in the property does not arise, since the said
property was already sold in favour of defendant No.2 in the
year 1997. Hence, I do not find any material to admit the
appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40041
HC-KAR
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
