Karnataka High Court
Sakamma vs K. Rajanna on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
RSA No. 573 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SAKAMMA
W/O LATE B RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O DOOR NO.1690, 100FT ROAD
MANDYA CITY-570 401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. RAJANNA
S/O SINGARAIAH
AGE MAJOR
R/O HOUSING BOARD,
Digitally signed COLONY M.I.G. NO.10
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH IISTAGE,
COURT OF MANDYA CITY-570 401
KARNATAKA
2. RAJU
S/O CHANNAPPA
MAJOR
R/O 6TH CROSS,
GANDHI NAGARA
MANDYA CITY-571 410
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
RSA No. 573 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 28.08.2018 PASSED IN
RA.NO.06/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2009
PASSED IN OS.NO.151/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE [SR.DN.] MANDYA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction against defendant No.1 in respect of
suit schedule properties.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that, she is the legally
wedded wife of one Ramaiah and their marriage took place
in the year 24.04.1980. Thereafter, she along with
Ramaiah were residing in item No.1 of the suit schedule
properties. The plaintiff and Ramaiah had no issues. On,
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
HC-KAR
15.01.1998, Ramaiah died intestate leaving the plaintiff as
his only legal heir. The plaintiff succeeded to all the
properties belonging to late Ramaiah. However, defendant
No.1 started to obstruct the plaintiff's peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties claiming to
be an adopted son of late Ramaiah, though late Ramaiah
had not transferred any portion of the suit schedule
properties to defendant No.1. Later on, the plaintiff
discovered that defendant No.1 has created documents in
his name in respect of suit schedule properties. However,
the said aspects were denied by defendant No.1 in his
written statement and he do not admit the status of the
plaintiff as the legally wedded wife of late Ramaiah and
also denied that the plaintiff was residing in item No.1 of
the suit schedule properties.
4. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that
Ramaiah, by virtue of unregistered Settlement Deed,
became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties
and later in the year 1981, he adopted defendant No.1,
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
HC-KAR
who is none other than the son of his brother, by
performing ceremonies of adoption and also by way of
unregistered Adoption Deed. 4. 5. To prove the
adoption of defendant No.1 by Ramaiah, defendant no.1
examined 4 witnesses as DWs.1 to 4 and all those
witnesses had unequivocally stated that they were present
at the time of adoption ceremony and also at the time of
execution of unregistered Adoption Deed. Though the said
Deed was produced before the Court, since the Court does
not accept the same due to non registration and the same
was not marked in evidence, additionally, Exs.D1 to D5 -
the marks sheet were produced to establish that
defendant no.1 is the adopted son of Ramaiah.
5. The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and
after considering the evidence and documents placed on
record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that
PW1 - the plaintiff has herself categorically admitted in her
cross-examination that her elder sister Jayamma was
married to Ramaiah and she died four years prior to the
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
HC-KAR
death of Ramaiah and at the time of plaintiff's marriage
with Ramaiah, her elder sister Jayamma was alive and also
attended their marriage and as such, the alleged marital
status claimed by the plaintiff does not hold good, since
the same was void marriage as per Hindu Law.
Nevertheless, there is no iota of evidence to indicate the
long cohabitation of the plaintiff as a legally wedded wife
of Ramaiah. On the other hand, defendant No.1
established that he had been recognized as the son of
Ramaiah since his childhood. Accordingly, the Trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
6. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court,
on re-appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with
the findings of the Trial Court that the documents
produced by defendant no.1 clearly established that he
was in possession of the suit schedule properties as the
absolute owner. On the other hand, the plaintiff has failed
to prove that she was legally wedded wife of Ramaiah,
since she admitted in her cross examination that her elder
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
HC-KAR
sister Jayamma was the legally wedded wife of Ramaiah
and said Jayamma was alive and present in the alleged
wedding ceremony of the plaintiff and Ramaiah. In such
circumstance, the plaintiff has totally failed to prove that
she is the legally wedded wife of Ramaiah and inherited
the suit schedule properties.
7. Further, the First Appellate Court has also recorded a
finding that Adoption Deed was also proved by defendant
No.1 by adducing the evidence of D.Ws.2 and D.W.4 and
also by producing the marks sheet - Exs.D1 to D5.
Accordingly, the First Appellate Court concurred with the
findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed
by the plaintiff.
8. Having given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the evidence, in my
view, both the Courts have correctly come to the
conclusion that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
HC-KAR
the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff has failed to
establish her right, title and interest in the suit schedule
properties by placing acceptable cogent evidence and
documents. I am unable to accept the vehement
contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant
that the marriage invitation card Ex.P1 and the
subsequent documents placed before both the Courts i.e.,
voter list of the year 1992 and 1995, itself establish the
legality of the alleged marriage of the plaintiff late
Ramaiah, in view of categorical admission of PW1 in her
cross-examination that the first wife of Ramaiah i.e.,
Jayamma, who is none other than the elder sister of the
plaintiff was alive at the time of plaintiff's marriage with
Ramaiah.
9. Further, the First Appellate Court and Trial Court
have rightly held that the adoption of defendant No.1 by
Ramaiah is proved through the materials on record and
the evidence of DWs.1 to 5. As such, in my view, there is
absolutely no question of law, muchless substantial
NC: 2025:KHC:43912
HC-KAR
question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
