Karnataka High Court
Smt. Narayanamma vs Sri. Narayanappa on 16 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
RSA No. 2006 of 2021
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.2006 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NARAYANAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/O HOUSE NO.148,
KADRIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
(BY SMT. VEENAKUMARI M AND
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SRI AKERSH B R, ADVOCATES)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED 60 YEARS
KADRIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
RSA No. 2006 of 2021
HC-KAR
2. SMT. MUNIYALLAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 57 YEARS
R/O HUDAKAL VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR - 563114
3. SRI. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE VENKATRAMAIAH
AGED 55 YEARS
KADRIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
4. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE S NARAYANAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT KARIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
5. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LAET VENKATAARAMAIAH
AGED 48 YEARS
R/AT KARIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
6. SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED 47 YEARS
R/O HUNAKUNDRA VILLAGE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
RSA No. 2006 of 2021
HC-KAR
KASABA HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK - 563114
KOLAR DISTRICT
7. SRI. S P SENAPPA
S/O LATE CHINNAPUTTAPPA
AGED 55 YEARS
R/O 1ST CROSS
NEAR SHUBHASH VIDYA SAMSTHE
OPPOSTIE OT KARNJIKATTE
KOLAR - 563101
8. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE MATARAPPA
AGED 70 YEARS
R/AT KADRIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563101
SRI. MARIRAJU
DEAD BY LRS
9. SMT. GAJALAKSHMI
W/O LATE MARIRAJU
AGED 62 YEARS
10. SRI. RAJESH
S/O LATE MARIRAJU
AGED 42 YEARS
11. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O LATE MARIRAJU
AGED 38 YEARS
12. SRI. LOKESH
S/O LATE MARIRAJU
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
RSA No. 2006 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED 35 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE
R/AT KADRIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK - 563101
13. SRI. SRINIVASA
S/O ANJANEYAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS
R/O MARJENAHALLI VILLAGE
AVANI HOBLI
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
RSA No. 2006 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The order sheet discloses that on 15.07.2024, at the
request of the counsel for the appellant, the case was
adjourned for two weeks on cost of Rs.2,000/- and even in
spite of cost was imposed and same was paid, today again the
proxy counsel seeks time in the afternoon session. In the
morning session when page wise case was called, the proxy
counsel requested for an adjournment but this Court declined
to grant time.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate
possession claiming that the plaintiff is the legal heir of one
Venkataramaiah and they are the members of Hindu undivided
joint family and suit schedule property is an ancestral and joint
family property. Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 have taken the
defence in the written statement that the plaintiff is the
stranger to their family and not the daughter of
Venkataramaiah and they have succeeded to the property of
Venkataramaiah under a family partition. Trial Court also
framed additional issues that whether defendant Nos.1 to 6
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
HC-KAR
prove that plaintiff is not the daughter of Venkataramaiah and
whether defendant Nos.1 to 6 further prove that defendant
Nos.1 to 5 subsequent to the partition by Venkataramaiah have
further partitioned the properties. The Trial Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record answered issue No.1 as negative in coming to the
conclusion that plaintiff and defendants are not the members of
the Hindu undivided divided joint family and the suit schedule
property is not an ancestral property and also accepted the
defence of the defendants that plaintiff is not the daughter of
Venkataramaiah and already there was a partition and already
there was a further partition among the defendants and
dismissed the suit.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.21/2021. The
First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, formulated the
point that whether the Trial Court erred in coming to the
conclusion that the plaintiff was not the daughter of
Venkataramaiah and whether the trial Court failed to appreciate
both oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
HC-KAR
whether judgment and decree of the trial Court requires
interference. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both
the oral and documentary evidence on record comes to the
conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in
coming to the conclusion that plaintiff was not the daughter of
Venkataramaiah and answered the Point Nos.2 to 4 as
negative. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the
Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellant that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is
capricious and not sustainable under law and findings of both
the Courts are contrary to the evidence and material on record.
Though the counsel for the appellant indicated the substantive
question of law contending that the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court is erroneous, capricious and not appreciated the
material on record, not suggested any substantive question of
law except the facts and also there is a concurrent finding with
regard to the factual aspects that plaintiff is not proved that
she is a daughter of one Venkataramaiah producing any
documentary proof. On the other hand, the defendants proved
that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Venkataramaiah. When
NC: 2025:KHC:41225
HC-KAR
such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the
appeal and frame the substantive question of law invoking
Section 100 of CPC.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
