Karnataka High Court
Indresh H A vs Smt Nalini on 31 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
RSA No. 720 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 720 OF 2024 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. INDRESH H A
S/O LATE H. B. APPAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. MADHUSUDAN. H. A.
S/O LATE H. B. APPAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. S. P. INDRAYANI @ S.P. ROOPA
D/O LATE H.B. APPAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O H.A. MADHUSUDHAN
Digitally signed ALL ARE RESIDING AT YADEHALLY,
by
HEMALATHA A NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH K. HOSAKOTE HOBLI, RAYARA KOPALLU POST,
COURTOF
KARNATAKA ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-570 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT NALINI
D/O H. B. APPAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT YADEHALLY, NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
RSA No. 720 of 2024
HC-KAR
K. HOSKOTE HOBLI, RAYARA KOPALLU POST,
ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-570 001
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. MIG-350,
6TH CROSS, NEW ASTC HUDCO,
HOSUR-635 109, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
2. PADMA
W/O. DHARMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT KARAGODU VILLAGE,
K-KOTE HOBLI, ALUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(NIL)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.49/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2021
PASSED IN OS NO.41/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the appellants' (defendant Nos.2 to 4) counsel.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings.
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court is that she is the daughter of
Late H.B.Appajigowda. Defendant No.1 is the wife,
defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Late
H.B.Appajigowda. Defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant
No.3 and defendant No.5 is the purchaser of suit item
No.4. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired
properties of Late H.B.Appajigowda. It is the specific
contention of the plaintiff that her father died intestate and
had not executed any document, conveying or
bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of any
member of the family. The sale executed in favour of
defendant No.5 does not bind her and she is entitled to a
1/4th share in the properties. It is not in dispute that
during the pendency of the suit, the mother, i.e.,
defendant No.1 also passed away.
4. The Trial Court, having considered both the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, though the
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
HC-KAR
defence was taken that they had paid the money, came to
the conclusion that there was no documentary evidence to
show that the plaintiff had relinquished her right. The sale
made in favour of defendant No.5 was without the consent
of the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court granted relief of a
1/3rd share in respect of the properties left by
Late Appajigowda. The same was challenged before the
First Appellate Court in R.A.No.49/2021. The First
Appellate Court, having reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence, extracted admissions on the part
of PW1 as well as DW1. While considering the material on
record, nothing was placed on record to show that the
plaintiff had relinquished her right or received any money
nor is there any document of relinquishment. Hence, the
case set out by the defendants cannot be accepted and the
judgments of the Courts below were rightly confirmed with
proper reasoning. The same is now questioned before this
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that both the Courts have failed to consider
Exs.D2 to D9 (Bank Challans) and Exs.D14 (Bank Account
Statement) and therefore, this Court has to frame a
substantial question of law.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants,
in spite of documents Exs.D2 to D9 being placed on record
before this Court, i.e., the Bank Challans, the same only
indicates that a payment was made and even Ex.D14 has
also been produced. However, no documentary proof has
been placed before the Court to show that the plaintiff had
relinquished her right after receiving the said money. The
mere making of payment in favour of the plaintiff and her
husband cannot take away the right of the plaintiff in
respect of the properties left by her father. If any
document had been placed before the Court showing that
she had received money and relinquished her right in
respect of the properties left by her father, then such
evidence could have supported the contention of the
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
HC-KAR
appellant's counsel. In the absence of any documentary
proof regarding the relinquishment of her right, even the
payment made in favour of the sister by the defendants,
cannot be accepted as proof of relinquishment.
7. Without any documentary proof with regard to the
relinquishment of right of the plaintiff, even if the payment
had been made in favour of the plaintiff, they would have
taken her signature, at least while executing the sale deed
in favour of defendant No.5. However, no such signature
was taken and moreover, the plaintiff is not a party to the
sale deed. Hence, both the Courts have come to the
conclusion that the sale made in favour of defendant No.5
is not binding on the plaintiff. When such reasons have
been given by the Trial Court and in the absence of any
documentary proof regarding the relinquishment of her
right, the very contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants that the documents or Exs.D2 to D9 and
Ex.D14 confirm that the payment was made to the plaintiff
and her right was relinquished cannot be accepted.
NC: 2025:KHC:43797
HC-KAR
8. Since, no such documents have been placed before
this Court, the question of framing any substantial
question of law does not arise so as to invoke Section 100
of the CPC.
9. In view of the submissions made above, I pass the
following order:
a) The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
HA
