Karnataka High Court
Sri Somachari vs Smt Ningamma on 15 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
RSA No. 452 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.452 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SOMACHARI,
S/O LATE KALACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
GUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NINGAMMA,
Digitally signed W/O SEETHARAMACHARI,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.2266/2, 6TH CROSS,
COURT OF DODDARAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
KARNATAKA
VINAYAKANAGARA,
MYSURU-570 012.
2. SMT. JAYAMMA,
D/O KALACHARI,
W/O LATE NAGACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ANCHEMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHEELANERE HOBLI,
K.R. PETE TALUK-571 426.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
RSA No. 452 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. SUNANDAMMA,
W/O BETTACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DINKASHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA-571 812.
4. SMT. SHASHIKALA,
W/O PUTTALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O SOMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
5. SRI. SURESHA,
S/O SOMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6. SRI. KRISHNA,
S/O SOMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE
R/AT BANNANGADI VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 812.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.64/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
RSA No. 452 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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
before the Trial Court in O.S.No.64/2015 while claiming the
relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share
in the suit schedule properties categorically pleaded that the
suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties and hence she is entitled for a share.
4. The defendant No.2 took the specific defence that
he had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as loan for
development of the suit schedule properties and equally
liable to pay the said loan amount. The Trial Court having
considered the material available on record, comes to the
conclusion that the properties are ancestral properties of the
plaintiff and the defendants. In order to substantiate the
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
HC-KAR
claim of defendant No.2, though documents at Exs.D.5 to 15
i.e., on demand promissory note and consideration receipts
are produced, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
nothing is placed on record to prove that the loan which was
borrowed is spent for the development of the properties and
hence granted 1/5th share in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.3/2023. With
regard to the contention of the appellant that he dug the
borewell is concerned, while considering point No.2 i.e., in
respect of issue No.3 is concerned that he had spent the
money, in paragraph No.17, the First Appellate Court made
an observation that if really the borewell is in existence and
the same is located, then the portion in which the borewell
exists may be allotted to defendant No.2, if it was not
possible in final decree proceedings, then the plaintiff may be
asked to pay the costs incurred by defendant No.2 for
digging borewell. Even at the time of consideration of appeal
also taken care of the interest of the appellant and confirmed
the judgment of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
HC-KAR
6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that in respect of the property of the father
of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, already a suit is filed in
O.S.No.39/2012 and when the said suit has not attained its
finality, the question of granting the relief of partition does
not arise. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court erred in granting 1/5th
share to the plaintiff and hence it requires interference of
this Court. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts
have not taken note of Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu
Succession Act with regard to the liabilities in respect of suit
schedule properties and hence this Court has to frame
substantial question of law by admitting the second appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and considering the reasoning of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court, it is the specific case of the
plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
HC-KAR
properties are ancestral properties and with regard to the
reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
that the properties are ancestral properties, the appellant
does not dispute the same. The only ground urged by the
appellant before this Court is granting of 1/5th share in
favour of the plaintiff is not correct. The fact that the
original propositus of the family left his legal heirs i.e., 5
children is not in dispute and hence the very contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that 1/5th share allotted
is not correct, cannot be accepted.
9. The other contention of the appellant is that
O.S.No.39/2012 judgment is questioned and an appeal is
pending for consideration for final adjudication. The fact that
the said suit is also decreed is not disputed by the appellant.
The said suit is among the father of the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 and his brothers. The fact is that the
properties are ancestral properties and share is granted to
the extent of 1/5th in respect of the share of the property of
the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and hence the
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
HC-KAR
same will not come in the way and its adjudication is
immaterial.
10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is contrary to
Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act. To that effect
also, both the Courts taken note that even if defendant No.2
had borrowed the money from some persons and placed on
record the documents of Exs.D.5 to 15, nothing is placed on
record to show that the amount which was borrowed was
spent for the development of the suit schedule properties. An
observation is made by the First Appellate Court in
paragraph No.17 with regard to while allotting the share, if
any borewell is located, if the amount borrowed is spent to
dug the borewell, the same can be allotted in favour of the
appellant. When such reasoning is given by the First
Appellate Court, I do not find any force in the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant to admit the second
appeal and frame any substantial question of law. Both the
Courts have taken note of factual aspects as well as question
NC: 2025:KHC:40841
HC-KAR
of law and hence no substantial question of law arises for
consideration and to admit the second appeal.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
