Karnataka High Court
Sri V Nagaraj vs Munivenkatamma on 25 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
RSA No. 313 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.313 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. NAGARAJ,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O DODDAVENKATAPPA,
R/AT KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BALAMANDE POST,
BUDIKOTE HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
2. K.V. MANJUNATHA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA,
R/AT KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BALAMANDE POST,
BUDIKOTE HOBLI,
Digitally signed BANGARPET TALUK,
by DEVIKA M
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. NARENDRA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUNIVENKATAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
W/O LATE THAMMANNA,
R/AT NO.22, MADURANAGARA,
2ND STAGE, SORAHUNASI,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
K.R.PURAM TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560038.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
RSA No. 313 of 2025
HC-KAR
MUNISWAMAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMI,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
2. NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. SARASWATHAMMA,
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
4. KRISHNA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.10, 2ND STAGE,
NEAR DIVYA JYOTHI SCHOOL,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560005.
MUNIVENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMI,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
5. DEVIKAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
6. KUMAR,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE
R/AT NO.172, CHANNASANDRA,
3RD CROSS, OPP. MVG COLLEGE,
AKG COLONY, KADUGODI POST,
BENGALURU - 560067.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
RSA No. 313 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT
BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED IN
O.S.NO246/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
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 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 while seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession in respect of three items of suit schedule properties
is that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint
family properties of herself and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and all
of them are members of the joint family. It is also contended
that alienation made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of
defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
HC-KAR
properties is not binding on her. The Trial Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
parties, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a party
to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4
and comes to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 3 are the
ancestral properties, but declined to grant any relief in respect
of item No.2 and the same is a house property and in order to
prove the same as ancestral property, nothing is placed on
record.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4
before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court
having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and
particularly taking note of the plaintiff is not a party to the sale
deed, comes to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 3 does
exclusively belongs to defendant Nos.1 and 2, who have sold
the property. The First Appellate Court also comes to the
conclusion that in the absence of contrary proof, the evidence
placed by the plaintiff holds sufficient to reach the conclusion
that suit item Nos.1 and 3 properties exclusively belongs to the
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
HC-KAR
mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as per
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The fact is that the
mother was not alive at the time of filing of the suit. The
plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeed to the estate of the
mother, but excluding the plaintiff, sale was made and hence
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
5. The grievance of the appellants before this Court is
that both the Courts failed to take note of the material available
on record. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that sale was made and entire sale
consideration was paid. This Court has to frame substantial
question of law as to whether the First Appellate Court was
justified in concurring with the finding of the Trial Court and
fails to consider the pleadings of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and
also to frame the substantial question of law that whether both
the Courts below were justified in holding that defendant Nos.3
and 4 have not proved that they are the bonafide purchasers
and hence to admit the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
HC-KAR
First Appellate Court, the properties belongs to the mother of
the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not in dispute. The
mother died intestate is also not in dispute. The defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property in favour of defendant
Nos.3 and 4 and at the time of selling the property, the plaintiff
was not a party to the sale deed and the appellants have not
verified the legal representatives of the mother, to whom the
property belongs to at the time of purchasing the property.
Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, when the
mother passed away and died intestate, the daughter also
succeeds to the estate of the mother and both the Courts have
taken note of the said fact into consideration and hence I do
not find any error committed by the Trial Court in coming to the
conclusion that that the appellants are not the bonafide
purchasers. The alienation made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in
favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiff.
Considering both the question of fact and question of law, the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considered the
same. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to
admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
However, both the Courts have not taken note of the fact that
NC: 2025:KHC:42268
HC-KAR
when defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property in favour
of the appellants, the appellants interest ought to have been
protected. Hence, the appellants are given liberty to plead
equity before the FDP Court for having purchased the interest
of defendant Nos.1 and 2 at the time of sharing the property
amongst the members of the family.
7. With these observations, the second appeal is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
