Karnataka High Court
Smt S M Shanthamma vs Sri Munivenkatappa on 30 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT S M SHANTHAMMA,
D/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
W/O P NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TANK BUND ROAD,
CHINTAMANI CITY,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,
SMT NARASAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,
Digitally signed
by SRI NARAYANAPPA,
PADMASHREE SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,
SHEKHAR DESAI
Location: High 1.
Court Of SMT RATHNAMMA,
Karnatka W/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF TILAK ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
2. SMT SOUBHAGYA,
W/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
W/O SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT
DUBBURAHALLI ROAD,
NEAR COURT, SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.
3. SMT LALITHA,
D/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
W/O LAKSHMANAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
SINGAREDDIHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDDAREDDIPALLI POST,
HINDUPUR TALUK,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 201.
4. SMT VENKATALAKSHMI,
D/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, 1ST HOUSE,
NARMADA LAYOUT, GOWRIBIDANURU,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.
5. SMT SHOBHA,
D/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
W/O NARASIMIAHA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF TILAK ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
6. SMT N MUNJULA,
D/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
W/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: TEACHER, RESIDING AT
NEAR VANI SCHOOL,
SONNASHETTIHALLI,
CHINTHAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 325.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
7. SRI SURESH BABU,
S/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SURYA CHILDREN HOSPITAL,
ANANTHANAGAR,
NEAR OLD BUS STOP, SIRISILLA,
RAJANNA SIRSILLA DISTRICT,
TELANGANA-505 302.
8. SMT YASHODA,
D/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.1558,
TILAK ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
9. SMT SWAPNA,
D/O LATE P NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.1558,
TILAK ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
SRI VENKATARAVANAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
10. SMT GANGARATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
TILAK ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
11. SRI S V NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
TILAK ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
12. SRI SATHYANARAYANA
S/O LATE TENKAYALA PAPAIAH,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SUBASH ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
13. SRI SRINIVASA,
S/O LATE TENKAYALA PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PWD OFFICE (JE),
NEAR SHANKAR MUTT,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
14. SMT YALLAMMA,
D/O LATE TENKAYALA PAPAIAH,
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF TILAK ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
15. SMT ADEMMA,
W/O BESHTA ADINARAYANAPPA,
D/O TENKAYALA PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
16. SMT PARVATHAMMA,
W/O BESHTA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
D/O LATE TENKAYALA PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF SHASANAKOTE,
PARAGI MANDALAM,
HINDUPURA TALUK,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 212.
17. SMT PADMAVATHAMMA,
W/O VENKATARAMANNA,
D/O LATE TENKAYALA PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
RESIDENT OF VIVEKANANDA ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
18. SRI CHOWDA REDDY,
S/O RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDENT BEHIND
SERICULTURE GRAINAGE
AND BOYS HOSTEL, M G ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN.
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
19. SMT JAYAMMA @ NARASAMMA,
D/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
W/O B SRIRAMALU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SINGAREDDIPALLI,
MUDDIREDDIPALLY DISTRICT,
HINDUPURA TALUK,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 201.
SMT NARAYANAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
20. SRI RADHAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE APPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF M G ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
21. SMT ASHWATHAMMA,
W/O B NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VIBHUTIPALLI VILLAGE,
HINDUPURA TALUK,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-586 217.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
22. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF M G ROAD
SRINIVASAPURA,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
23. SRI NARAYANASWAMY,
SO LATE APPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
24. SRI A SRINIVASAN,
SO LATE APPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.23 & 24,
ARE RESIDING AT M G ROAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
25. SRI SREERAMAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
(A) SMT. LAKSHMI DEVAMMA,
W/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
(B) SMT. GEETHA,
D/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
(C) SRI. MANJUNATH .S,
S/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BEHIND BSNL OFFICE,
MARUTHINAGAR,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
26. SRI RAMACHANDRA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S,
(A) SMT. SEETHAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA .A
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
(B) SMT. REKHA,
D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA .A
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
(C) SMT. LATHA .R,
D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA .A
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
(D) SRI. ARUN KUMAR .R,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA .R,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
(E) SMT. LAKSHMI .R,
D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA .A,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NEAR STADIUM, MARUTHI NAGAR,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R12 &
R17, SRI. R.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R18,
SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY, H.P., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R14,
R2, R11, R15 SERVED AS PER POSTAL TRACK,
R16, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25(C), R26(A), R26(E) ARE
SERVED, V/O DTD: 24.01.2024 NOTICE TO R3, R4, R6, R7 &
R8 IS H/S, R13 & R19 ARE SERVED,
V/O DTD:18.06.2024 NOTICED TO R1 & R9 IS H/S,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
RSA No. 418 of 2022
HC-KAR
V/O DTD: 18.06.2024 R11 IS TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED
R10, V/O DTD: 15.10.2025 NOTICE TO R25 (A&B), R26(B TO
D) IS H/S)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021
PASSED IN RA.No.83/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2014
PASSED IN OS No.49/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for appellant counsel and also
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.12 and 17.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the trial court in the suit which is filed for the relief of partition
and separate possession, in detail leaded before the trial court
that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 10 are relatives and
suit schedule property are joint family properties in joint
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1
to 10 and also pleaded that registered gift deed dated
21.06.1984 executed by Tenkayala Papaiah in favour of
defendant Nos.8 to 10 in respect of suit schedule property item
Nos.2 and 3 is not binding on her. It is also the case of the
plaintiffs that the properties conveyed under the gift dated
21.06.1984 is also an ancestral properties and further
contention that sale of properties shown under suit schedule 'B'
in favour of defendant No.11 by defendant Nos.3 to 6 is not for
the benefit of joint family and not for legal necessity. As such,
the said alienation is not binding on the plaintiff. It is the
contention of defendant No.2 that plaint schedule 'C' and
schedule 'F', item No.2 properties are the self acquired
properties of defendant No.2. Also it is the contention that the
defendant Nos.8 and 9 that plaintiff has mentioned wrong
boundaries to schedule 'C', 'F' and 'G' properties as alleged in
their additional written statement. The trial court given an
opportunity to both defendant and also the plaintiffs, in order
to prove the case. The plaintiff herself got examined as PW1
and got marked document at Exs.P1 to P53. The defendants
have also examined 5 witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and got
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
marked document at Exs.D1 to D65. The trial court having
considered the material with regard to relationship is
concerned, answered the issue No.1 as affirmative and also
answered issue Nos.6 and 7 as affirmative. Defendant No. 2
proved that plaint 'C' and 'F', item No.2 are self acquired
properties of defendant No.2 and so also defendants proves
that the suit is bad for misjoinder of properties and other issues
answered as negative and dismissed the suit in coming to
conclusion that no joint family is in existence and already there
was a partition among the members of Papaiah and in turn, the
very plaintiff had purchased the property under documents
Exs.D1 to D3 from defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6. Hence, comes to
a conclusion that when already there is a division among the
sons of possession, the said order was challenged before the
appellate court. The appellate court also having reassessed the
material available on record and also in keeping the grounds
urged in the first appeal, formulated the points as below;
1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that
the suit schedule properties are the joint
family properties of the plaintiff &
defendant Nos.1 to 10 & 12 in which she is
having a share?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
2. Whether the application filed by the
plaintiff [appellant] under Order I Rule
10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC (I.A. No. V)
seeking to implead proposed respondent
Nos.18 to 22 in this Appeal deserves to be
allowed?
3. Whether the applications filed by the
plaintiff [appellant] under Order VI rule 17
of CPC (I.A. Nos. VI & VIII) deserve to be
allowed?
4. Whether the applications filed by the
plaintiff [appellant] - I.A. No. VII) &
defendant No.5 [respondent No.5] - I.A.
No.XI, both under Order XLI rule 27 of
CPC, deserve to be allowed?
5. Whether the impugned Judgment &
Decree of the Trial Court calls for any
interference by this Court in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction?
6. To what Order?
The appellate court considering all the above points for
consideration and on re-appreciation of the material available
on record, answered all the points in 'negative', particularly in
paragraph No.38. In coming to the conclusion of documents
that there is an indication as to whether the said properties are
self acquired properties or ancestral properties of Papaiah? and
basis of mutation of his name in the said records is not
forthcoming, is not discussed. However in paragraph No.40 in
detail taken note of documents particularly considering the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
documents at Exs.D1 to 3 which are confronted to the PW1,
during the cross examination and got marked during the course
of cross examination and categorically admits that she has not
included the properties which she has purchased by her, under
Exs.D1 to D3 sale deed i.e, sale deeds from her father and also
from her uncles vide sale deed dated 22.03.2002, 14.01.2006
and 28.02.2005. All these documents clearly establishes that
she had purchased the property from her father, that is
defendant No.1 and her uncle i.e, defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6 and
made an observation that if there was no division in the family
and the plaintiff was one of the coparcener of the joint family,
she definitely would not have purchased the said property
under the registered sale deed from her father and her uncle.
Thus, it is apparent that father of the plaintiff i.e, defendant
No.1 along with other children of Papaiah have partitioned the
properties. In such an event, the plaintiffs can only claim her
share from the land allotted to her father ie., defendant No.1,
the question of existence of any joint family of the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 10 and 12 does not arise and when such
finding is given by the trial court, as well as the appellate court
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
and appellate court also cofirmed the judgments of the Trial
Court.
4. Now the counsel appearing for the appellant, made
the submission before this court that both the courts committed
an error only relying upon the document of Exs.D1 to D3 under
which she had purchased the property and contended that
solely on the ground that properties of 2 branches are also
included. Both courts were not justified in applying the
provisions of Section 6(1) of the Hindu succession of 1956
negating the claim of the appellant.
5. The first appellate court also committed grave error
in dismissing the application preferred by the appellant under
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and amendment is sought only on the
short question, that post trial amendment is impermissible.
The very approach of the appellate court is erroneous.
6. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently
contended that when there was already partition among the
sons of Papaiah and also they dealt with the property and
plaintiff herself had purchased the properties of her father, as
well as their uncle lately taken note of no existence of joint
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
family as pleaded by the plaintiff, that plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 to 10 and 12 constitute the joint family. Since there is
already a division and in pursuance of the division only, the
properties were dealt by the defendant Nos.3 4 and 6 in favour
of the plaintiff and hence both courts have not committed any
error.
7. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and also
counsel appearing for the respondents and also considering the
factual aspects of the case and also the claim made by plaintiffs
and considering the pleadings, he pleaded that there was an
existence of joint family and also pleaded that the relationship
between the plaintiff and defendants through the propositors
Tenkayala Papaiah and material also discloses, that the
properties belongs to Tenkayala Papaiah and subsequently
there was a partition among the members of the joint family
i.e., inter-se between the members of Tenkayala Papaiah and
also the document at Exs.D1 to D3 clearly discloses that the
properties which were allotted in favor of the father of the
plaintiff, as well as their uncle and the very plaintiff had
purchased the property in terms of Exs.D1, D2 and D3. The
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
properties allotted in favor of defendant Nos.1,3, 4 and 6,
which clearly establishes that there is no existence of joint
family and already there was partition and properties were
dealt with and apart from that, even the gift deed was also
executed by Tenkayala Papaiah in favor of his children i.e.,
defendant Nos.8 to 10, long back in the year 1984.
8. Having considered all these material on records, as
well as there was no inter-se dispute between the children of
Tenkayala Papaiah with regard to the very execution of the gift
deed in favor of defendant Nos.8 to 10 and the same is not
questioned by very executant and also the father and uncle of
the plaintiff and when such material available before the court,
both the trial court, as well as the appellate court considering
the material on record, in a proper perspective appreciated the
same. Both questions of fact and question of law, considered
when there was no any existence of joint family and already
there was a partition and also the persons who have derived
the title in pursuance of their partition already sold the
property, that too in favor of the plaintiff under the document
Exs.D1 to D3.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43753
HC-KAR
9. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of
appreciation by the trial court, as well as appellate court on the
factual aspect, as well as question of law. Hence, it doesn't
require any admission, also there is no any substantive
question of law to frame the same. Hence, question of invoking
section 100 of CPC does not arise
Hence, this regular second appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
AKV
