Karnataka High Court
B.P. Veeresh vs Smt. Rathnamma on 16 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
RSA No. 172 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.172 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. B.P. VEERESH
S/O B. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. B.P. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O D.B. PARAMESHWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE
ANJANAPURA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TLAUK-577 427.
3. SMT. B.P. GAYATHRI
Digitally signed D/O D.B. PARAMESHWARAPPA
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O NO.50, 5TH CROSS
KARNATAKA DEVARASANDRA, K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU-560 036.
4. SMT. B.P.KAVITHA
D/O D.B.PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O TUDANUR VILLAGE
SAMANAHALLI POST
ANAVATTI HOBLI
SORABA TALUK-577 429.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
RSA No. 172 of 2024
HC-KAR
THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - B.P. VEERESH
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE K PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. BYRESHA
S/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3. KISHOR
S/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
4. SMT. POORNIMA
D/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5. SMT. HEMA
D/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
6. K. SHUBHAPPA
S/O BORAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
7. K. RAVI
S/O BORAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
8. K. PALAKSHAPPA
S/O BORAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
DODDAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
RSA No. 172 of 2024
HC-KAR
CHIKKAJOGIHALLI POST
ANJANAPURA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.67/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
27.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.4/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPUA.
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 and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that the sale dated 15.12.1959
executed by their grand-father Mallappa in favour of Nagamma
is fraudulent, void and not binding on them.
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
HC-KAR
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and
denied other averments averred in the plaint.
5. The Trial Court given an opportunity to both the
parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered the
evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and
also considering documents Exs.P1 to P14 and Exs.D1 to D40,
answered all the issues as 'negative'. But, while answering
issue No.3 comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by
limitation.
6. The said finding is challenged before the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.67/2019. The First Appellate Court
having considered the grounds which have been set out in the
appeal, formulated the point and even considering the
application filed for amendment as well as additional evidence
and so also the sale deed dated 15.12.1959, formulated the
points whether the said sale deed is illegal, void, fraudulent and
fabricated, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration and possession and whether it requires
interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
HC-KAR
7. The First Appellate Court having considered the
pleadings, written statement as well as reasoning of the Trial
Court, even taken note of the fact that property was originally
purchased in the year 1930 by Rudrappa as per Ex.P1-sale
deed which has been narrated in paragraph No.23 and also
taken note of the fact that subsequently, property was sold in
the year 1959 and when the disputed sale deed was executed,
even Basappa was no more and his wife Gangamma has
succeeded him, so also, his another brother Mallappa. It is
Gangamma, wife of Basappa and Mallappa, who have jointly
executed the sale deed of the year 1959 in favour of mother of
defendant No.1-Smt. Nagamma and the said sale deed at Ex.P2
was also taken note of.
8. The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.24
observed that in Ex.P2-sale deed, it is specifically mentioned
that since they have borrowed the loan from Issuru Society by
mortgaging the said property and they require the amount to
repay the loan, they jointly sold the suit property in favour of
Nagamma. So, for the joint family necessities and to repay the
loan borrowed from Issuru Society, Mallappa and Gangamma,
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
HC-KAR
who are eldest members of two branches have jointly sold the
property. The First Appellate Court also observed that suit is
filed by the plaintiff's father earlier in O.S.No.170/2023 in
paragraph No.25 and in paragraph No.26, in detail taken note
of the fact that when the father had filed the suit earlier,
excluded the suit schedule property and also taken note of the
fact that there was no reason for the plaintiffs' father to file the
suit only in respect of 1 acre of land by admitting the sale
executed by his mother and detailed order was passed.
However, taken note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court
with regard to the fact that suit is barred by limitation is
concerned.
9. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants brought to notice of this Court that when the First
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that suit is not barred
by limitation, ought not to have confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court and the said contention of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. Even though
the First Appellate Court comes to an other conclusion that suit
is not barred by limitation, the First Appellate Court taken note
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
HC-KAR
of the nature of the document executed by the mother as well
as said Mallappa i.e., Ex.P2 and also taken note of the fact that
when the father had filed the suit earlier, excluded the suit
schedule property having the knowledge about the sale and the
same was not questioned in the earlier suit and well reasoned
order has been passed by the First Appellate Court while
confirming the judgment, even though not agreed with the
reason of the Trial Court regarding the limitation is concerned.
10. When such being the case and well reasoned order
has been passed by the First Appellate Court considering the
material available on record and reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence as well as pleadings and right of the
parties, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame
any substantial question of law and both the Courts have taken
note of question of fact and question of law. Hence, there is no
ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question
of law.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
NC: 2025:KHC:41177
HC-KAR
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
