Karnataka High Court
M/S Eagleburg India Private Limited vs Smt Dhanalakshmi on 13 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
RSA No. 717 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.717 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. EAGLEBURG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.2348, KUMARA KRUPA, 9TH MAIN,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU- 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. RANGANATH S. KAUSHIK,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS KAUSHIK,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PINEWOOD PARK,
NO.3A, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU-570 004.
2. SRI. M.L. NAVEEN KUMAR,
Digitally signed S/O LATE M.P.LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.420/1, 11TH MAIN,
COURT OF CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
KARNATAKA
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570 004.
3. SRI. HANUMANARASAIAH,
S/O CHIKKACHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT BILLEKEMPANAHALLI,
B.N. HALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 109.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.N.NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. PARINA LALLA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
RSA No. 717 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI,
W/O SRI. GOVINDRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.92, 5TH CROSS,
KURABURAHALLI,
MYSURU - 570 011.
2. SMT. UMASHANKARI,
W/O SRI. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BADAGALAHUNDI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 010.
3. SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
S/O LATE THAMBADIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
4. SRI. R. KRISHNA,
S/O SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5. SRI. VASUDEVA,
S/O SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
6. SRI. R. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O SRI. THAMBADIGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE
ALL RESIDING AT DOOR NO.274,
VRAGYA MARGA, SIDDHARTA LAYOUT,
MYSURU - 570 010.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
RSA No. 717 of 2025
HC-KAR
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.723/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL II
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
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 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 plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs filed
O.S.No.723/2009 seeking for the relief of partition and
separate possession of their 2/6th share against defendant
Nos.1 to 4 by metes and bounds by holding that the sale
deeds dated 16.06.2006 and 25.11.2006 are not binding on
them. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the
ancestral joint family property of themselves and defendant
Nos.1 to 4 and they are in joint possession over the same.
The suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant No.1
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
in the partition that took place between defendant No.1 and
his brother. It is also contended by the plaintiffs that the
khatha of the same was standing in the name of defendant
No.1. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of defendant
No.1. It is contended that the plaintiffs' grandfather
possessed ancestral landed property bearing Sy.No.33/6
situated at Bonthagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatana
Taluk, Mandya District. Subsequent to the demise of their
grandfather Thamadigowda, the said property was jointly
inherited by second wife Smt. Thamadamma and her sons
Thamadigowda and Chikka alias Chikkaiah and they sold the
said property on 08.11.1952 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas in
Sy.No.33/6 in favour of Marigowda S/o Maligowda. It is also
the specific case that out of the sale consideration so received
from the sale of the ancestral property, the aforesaid
Thambadigowda @ Ramaiah and Chikkaiah jointly purchased
land bearing Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas situated
at Varakodu Grama, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk from
Thambadaiah S/o Kuntijavaregowda and his wife Kempamma
and his children on 25.05.1955 through a registered sale
deed. Thus, it is contended that the suit schedule property is
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
the ancestral property of themselves in which they can claim
a right by birth.
4. It is also contended that subsequently, at an oral
partition, Thambadigowda and Chikkaiah received an extent
of 1 acre 11 guntas each and the said Thambadigowda
purportedly sold his share in favour of one Sri Naveen Kumar
on 11.07.2005 illegally and behind the back of the plaintiffs.
The said Naveen Kumar sold the suit schedule property in
favour of Sri Hanumanarasaiah S/o Chikkachannappa, who is
defendant No.5. In turn, defendant No.5 sold the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.6. Since all
these alienations are subsequent to 20.12.2004, none of
these alienations bind the plaintiffs. It is further contended
that the plaintiffs pleaded that they are married and are
residing at their matrimonial house. There was no partition
between them and defendant Nos.1 to 4 with respect to the
suit schedule property. When they visited their parental
house, they demanded for partition on 15.11.2009 with
defendant No.1. At the first instance, defendant No.1 agreed
to effect partition, but later on turned down their demand to
effect partition and hence without any other alternative, they
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession
holding that the sale deeds made by them are not binding on
them.
5. The defendant Nos.5 and 6 appeared before the
Trial Court and filed the written statement contending that the
said property belongs to defendant No.1 and the same is a
self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and though his sons
have joined along with defendant No.1 in selling the property,
only for nominal sake entered into the said deed and hence
the plaintiffs are not having any right over the suit schedule
property.
6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the issues whether the plaintiffs prove
that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties
of the plaintiffs and the defendants, whether the plaintiffs
prove that the sale deeds dated 16.06.2006 and 25.11.2006
are not binding on them, whether they are entitled for 2/6th
share in the suit schedule property and whether the Court fee
paid is sufficient and proper?
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
7. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case,
examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to 20. On the other hand, defendant
No.6 has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked the
documents at Exs.D.1 to 13. The Trial Court having
considered the material available on record, answered issue
Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that
the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and that
they were in joint possession of the property and the sale
deeds executed are not binding on the plaintiffs. The Trial
Court answered issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative with regard
to the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient
or proper and granted the relief of partition granting share of
2/6th share in respect of the suit schedule property in favour
of the plaintiffs.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court,
the appellants filed an appeal in R.A.No.82/2021. The First
Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the
appeal, formulated the points whether the Trial Court has
erred in holding the suit property as the ancestral property of
the plaintiffs, whether the Trial Court has committed an error
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
in appreciating oral and documentary evidence in proper
perspective and whether it requires any interference of this
Court. The First Appellate Court while dealing with the
matter, taken note of the grounds urged in the appeal and
also considered the pleadings of the parties and in paragraph
Nos.26, 27 and 28 taken note of the document of sale deeds
at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Having taken note of the same, in
paragraph No.29 comes to the conclusion that out of the sale
consideration received by the sale of ancestral property under
the registered sale deed dated 08.11.1952, the property was
jointly purchased by defendant No.1 and his brother and
comes to the conclusion that there was a partition among
defendant No.1 and his brother and the same cannot be
termed as a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The main contention of the appellants before this
Court, who are the subsequent purchasers of the suit
schedule property, is that both the Courts have committed an
error in holding that the suit schedule property is ancestral in
nature despite the absence of any documentary evidence to
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
substantiate such a claim made by the plaintiffs i.e.,
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel would contend
that there was a partition effected between defendant No.1
and his brother and also contend that the plaintiffs cannot
claim any share in the property and there was a partition.
Both the Courts without considering the issue of Court fee
payable as required under the provisions of the Karnataka
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, committed an error and a
specific contention was taken that they were not in possession
of the property and they cannot maintain a suit for the relief
of partition and seek the relief as not binding on them and the
very approach of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
is erroneous and the same requires interference by admitting
the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and considering the reasons assigned by the Trial
Court, particularly in the Trial Court pleadings, the plaintiffs
have categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property is
an ancestral property. They have pleaded that originally the
property bearing Sy.No.33/6 belongs to their ancestor i.e.,
grandfather and the same was jointly inherited by the second
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
wife Smt. Thamadamma and her sons Thamadigowda and
Chikka alias Chikkaiah and they sold the property on
08.11.1952. Subsequent to the selling of the said property,
the property was purchased on 25.05.1955 through a
registered sale deed. Having pleaded the same, in order to
substantiate the same, the plaintiffs have placed on record
the document of Ex.P.2 RTC extract for the year 2008-09,
registered sale deed as per Ex.P.3 and the document of Ex.P.4
certified copy of sale deed dated 08.11.1952, which
establishes the fact that the property was sold and the said
property belongs to the family of defendant No.1 i.e.,
ancestors and all other documents are placed before the
Court. Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1
and others are also placed on record as Ex.D.8. The
defendants have also relied upon the sale deed dated
25.05.1955 and certified copy of the RTC extract for the year
1995-96 by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.8. Having considered all
these documents, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
the property is an ancestral property and the same is acquired
out of the sale consideration in terms of Exs.P.3 and 4, which
evidences the fact that it is an ancestral property.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
11. The First Appellate Court re-assessed both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly
taken note of the pleadings of the parties. The contention of
the defendants that it is a self-acquired property of defendant
No.1 and also the contention of the plaintiffs that it was an
ancestral property of themselves and the defendants, was
taken note of in detail by framing the point for consideration.
In paragraph No.26 taken note of Ex.P.3 and in paragraph
No.27 taken note of the recitals of Ex.P.3 and also taken note
of the recitals of Ex.P.4 i.e., sale deed dated 08.11.1952 in
paragraph No.28. The sale made by the parties are also
taken note of and in paragraph No.29 comes to the conclusion
that out of the sale consideration received by the sale of
ancestral property under the registered sale deed dated
08.11.1952, jointly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.49
measuring 2 acres 22 guntas. Considering Exs.P.3 and 4 and
other documents comes to the conclusion that the suit
schedule property is an ancestral property and the same is
purchased out of the sale consideration of sale of the property
belonging to the ancestors.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
12. Though the learned counsel for the appellants
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record and also suggested to frame
substantial question of law that the same has not been
considered in a proper perspective, unless this Court finds any
perversity in the finding of the factual aspects of the case, the
question of entertaining the second appeal does not arise. It
has to be noted that sale is made subsequent to amendment
to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. When such being the
case and when the daughters are excluded while selling the
property by the father and other brothers, the very contention
of the learned counsel for the appellants that the property is
not an ancestral property cannot be accepted. The daughters
also become the coparceners in respect of the ancestral
properties and Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act attracts in
coming to the conclusion with regard to the devolving of the
property in respect of the other coparceners. The very
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be
accepted and both the Courts taken note of question of fact
and question of law and hence there is no any substantial
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40421
HC-KAR
question of law to admit the appeal and frame the substantial
question of law and hence no grounds.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
