Karnataka High Court
K. Jayaramaiah vs Nijalingaiah on 16 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
RSA No. 540 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. 540 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. K. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O LATE M.C.KRISHNAPPA
AGED 77 YEARS
R/O CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA
NEAR POLICE QUARTERS
MANDYA - 571 408.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NIJALINGAIAH
S/O KARIGOWDA
AGED 61 YEARS
R/O SHIVARA VILLAGE.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
2. K. MUDDALINGAIAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
KARNATAKA AGED 81 YEARS
R/O CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA
NEAR POLICE QUARTERS
MANDYA-571436.
3. K. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 68 YEARS
P.D.O., SANTHEKASALAGERE
GRAMPANCHAYAT
R/O 1ST CROSS, SHANKARANAGAR
MANDYA-571 436.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
RSA No. 540 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. K. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O ALWTE M.C. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 66 YEARS
R/O MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KERAGODU HOBLI
R/O MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KERAGODU HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK-571 436.
5. SMT. K.R. RADHA
W/O LATE K. PURUSHOTTAMA
AGED 54 YEARS
6. M.P. DINAKAR
S/O LATE K. PURUSHOTTAMA
AGED 27 YEARS
7. M.P. VISHWAS
S/O LATE K. PURUSHOTTAM
AGED 25 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE
R/O ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA
NEAR RICE MILL, MANDYA CITY-571 436.
8. MANJU S/O LATE K. JAYAMMA
W/O CHIKKACHANNAIAH
AGED 54 YEARS
R/O MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KERAGODU HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK-571 436.
9. ANANDA S/O LATE K. JAYAMMA
W/O CHIKKACHANNAIHA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/O SHANKARANAGAR
1ST CROSS, SHANTHI NILAYA
NEAR AMBUJAMMA PARK
MANDYA-571 436.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
RSA No. 540 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE K. JAYAMMA
W/O CHIKKACHANNAIAH
AGED 50 YEARS
R/O SHANKARANAGAR
1ST CROSS, SHANTHI NILAYA
NEAR AMBUJAMMA PARK
MANDYA-571 436.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANDYA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 08.02.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.491/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA.
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 appearing for the appellant
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit filed for the
relief of declaration, partition and permanent injunction and
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
confirmation made by the First Appellate Court in dismissing
the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the
Trial Court is that suit schedule property is joint family and
ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants and the same
is in their joint possession and enjoyment as on the date of
filing of the suit. It is the contention that defendant No.4 is not
having any absolute right over the suit schedule property and
he illegally sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.1
with an intention to defraud the right of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 took the contention that
defendant No.4 for the family and legal necessity and in order
to purchase the site, sold the suit schedule property with the
consent of plaintiff and other family members. The defendant
Nos.2 to 5 also took the contention that suit is bad for partial
partition as contended in paragraph No.10 of the written
statement. It is also contended that suit is barred by limitation.
5. The Trial Court recasted the issues whether the suit
schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff and
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
defendant No.2 to 7, whether they are entitled for the relief of
declaration and partial partition and whether they are in joint
possession and sale made by defendant No.4 in favour of
defendant No.1 is for family necessity. The Trial Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence available on
record, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 as 'negative' that suit
schedule property is ancestral and joint family property and the
said sale is not binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit schedule property. However, answered
issue Nos.5 to 8 as 'affirmative', in coming to the conclusion
that property was sold by defendant No.4 in favour of
defendant No.1 for legal necessity and defendant No.1 is the
bonafide purchaser and suit is bad for non-joinder of all the
ancestral and joint family property and the suit is also barred
by limitation, since sale is made in the year 2000 and dismissed
the suit.
6. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of
both oral and documentary evidence, having framed the points
for consideration in detail discussed in paragraph No.10 of the
judgment while answering points which have been framed
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
whether the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, capricious,
whether the Trial Court comes to the wrong conclusion
considering the admissions on the part of P.W.1 and whether
the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 have got share in the suit
schedule property and the same are answered as 'negative'.
Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, present second
appeal is filed before this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts were not justified in
coming to the conclusion that suit filed by the appellant is
barred by time on the ground that suit has been filed in 2012
and sale deed has been executed on 19.10.2000 in favour of
respondent No.1, in the absence of evidence to show that
appellant was having the knowledge about the same. The
counsel would vehemently contend that when the property
belong to the joint family and sought for the relief of
declaration on the ground that property is the joint family
property, the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the
conclusion that the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the
property and suit is also bad for partial partition, though there
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
is an evidence on record that suit property belongs to
Chennamma, the mother of the appellant and other
respondents were also having right. Apart from that, mother
died intestate and it does not require inclusion of all the
ancestral and joint family property of the family. The counsel
would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court
recognized the right of the appellant that he is entitled for 1/5th
share in the joint family property and the said share is not in
respect of the suit schedule property when such finding is
sustainable in the eye of law.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also having considered the reasons assigned by
the Trial Court, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration,
partition and possession claiming that suit schedule property is
the joint family and ancestral property and all of them are in
joint possession. It has emerged during the course of evidence
that already sale was made in the year 2000 itself and suit is
filed in the year 2012. Apart from that, there is a clear
admission on the part of P.W.1 that the present suit is filed only
in respect of the properties which have been sold and not
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
included all the joint family and ancestral property in the suit.
It is also the specific contention of other defendants that
defendant No.4 sold the property in favour of defendant No.1
for legal and family necessity and the First Appellate Court also
in detail considered the case of the plaintiff, particularly in
paragraph No.10.9 and extracted the admission on the part of
P.W.1, wherein he categorically admitted that even though
there was no division in the family, suit is filed in respect of the
properties which have been sold and the said admission is not a
stray admission and even voluntarily stated that suit is filed in
respect of the properties which have been sold and comes to
the conclusion that there is no need to spend money to file a
suit in respect of all the properties and suit is filed only in
respect of the properties which have been sold. The fact that
after the death of the mother, khatha was changed in favour of
the defendant No.4 with the consent of the plaintiff and the
said defence was also taken during the course of the pleading
as well as during the course of evidence. In paragraph
No.10.10, the First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact
that when the plaintiff himself unequivocally admitted that he
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
has not included all the joint family property in the suit on
hand, suit is bad for partial partition.
9. Having considered the admissions, pleadings and
also the material available on record, the Trial Court has not
committed any error in dismissing the suit in coming to the
conclusion that suit for partial partition is not maintainable,
when unequivocal admission was given by the plaintiff during
the course of cross-examination that except the properties
which have been sold, other family properties were not
included. Hence, the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that
the sale made by the brother is illegal does not arise.
Therefore, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and
frame substantial question of law.
10. However, in view of the observation made by the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that suit for
partial partition is not maintainable, liberty is given to the
appellant to seek the comprehensive relief for inclusion of all
the family properties claiming share before the appropriate
forum.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41181
HC-KAR
With these observations, the regular second appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
