Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkataswamy H.N vs Sri H.N. Narayanaswamy on 31 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
RSA No. 856 of 2025
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. 856 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATASWAMY H.N.
SON OF LATE NADIPANNA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
NOTE: SENIOR CITIZEN RELIEF NOT CLAIMED
2. SRI H.N. VENUGOPAL
SON OF LATE NADIPANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
Digitally signed
by
HEMALATHA A 3. SMT SUSHEELAMMA
Location: HIGH DAUGHTER OF LATE NADIPANNA
COURTOF
KARNATAKA WIFE OF SRI VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT SUNNAKALBEEDHI
CHICKBALLAPUR CITY - 562 101
SENIOR CITIZEN RELIEF NOT CLAIMED
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MURALIDHARA P, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
RSA No. 856 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI H.N. NARAYANASWAMY
SON OF LATE NADIPANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
2. SRI N. MOULA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF KGN STAR FRUITS,
NEAR BHAVANI STORE, B.R. ROAD,
CHICKBALLAPUR CITY - 562 101
3. SRI GUNTHAPALLI LAKSHMIPATHI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SRI SAI TEA STALL/ MILK PARLOR,
B-B ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101
NOTE: SENIOR CITIZEN RELIEF NOT CLAIMED
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N THIMME GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 2 READ
WITH SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 18.02.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.68/2020 ON
THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.02.2020
PASSED IN OS NO.155/2017 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
RSA No. 856 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the appellants' counsel and also the counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. This second appeal is listed for admission and the
same is filed against the concurrent finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the
trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are joint
family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is
the contention of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 3
have let out the portion of Item No.1 in favour of
defendant Nos.4 and 5. It is the defence of the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 that defendant No.1, in order to clear the loan
amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, had obtained a Consent Deed
executed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in
favour of defendant No.1. Having considered the pleadings
of the parties, they were allowed to lead evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
HC-KAR
4. The trial Court, having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the
properties are ancestral and joint family properties.
Though the specific defence was taken by the defendants
that a consent deed was executed by the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.2 and 3 in terms of Ex.D1, the same was
not accepted, particularly considering the answer elicited
from the mouths of witnesses DW1 to DW3 regarding the
purchase of the stamp paper. Moreover, the said
document (Ex.D1) is an unregistered one. Hence,
contention of the defendants was not accepted and the
suit was decreed, granting relief of 1/4th share in respect
of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 3. Being aggrieved by the said order,
an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.68/2020.
5. The First Appellate Court, having considered the
grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
HC-KAR
as to whether the appellants have made out grounds to
permit them to include Item Nos.11 to 16 properties by
way of amendment and whether the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court required interference. The First
Appellate Court, reassessed the material available on the
record, answered the point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and
point No.4 in the affirmative, thereby justifying the grant
of relief and confirming the judgment of trial Court.
6. The main contention of the appellants' counsel before
this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error
in considering the material on record. Apart from that,
when the applications I.A.Nos.3 and 9 under Order I Rule
10 read with Section 151 of CPC as well as I.A.Nos.4 and 8
under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC and
under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC were
filed, those applications were dismissed. It is also
contended that the amendment was not required and that
the First Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the
appeal by concurring with the judgment of The trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
HC-KAR
The counsel also vehemently contended that when the
document Ex.D1 was placed before the trial Court, the
same was not considered. Hence, the matter requires
interference and admission to frame a substantial question
of law.
7. Per contra, the counsel appearing the respondents
would submit that no dispute with regard to the
relationship between the parties. Though it is contended
that the plaintiff had executed the document Ex.D1,
a consent deed, to clear the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, the
same is disputed and not proved. Moreover, the said
document is not a registered one and all these factors
were taken note of by the trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court and dismissed the case of the appellants.
8. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondents, it is the specific
case of the appellants that the suit schedule properties are
joint family and ancestral properties and the nature of the
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
HC-KAR
properties is also not disputed by the defendants. The only
contention of the defendants is that defendant No.1 has
cleared the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and to clear
the same, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have
executed a consent deed.
9. On perusal of the material available on record,
particularly, the trial Court with regard to the document
Ex.D1, it is noted that the said document is not a
registered document. Apart from that, the evidence of
DW1 to DW3 with regard to the document Ex.D1 does not
inspire the confidence of the Court, particularly with
regard to the purchase of the stamp paper. One says that
the stamp paper was purchased from Taluk Office and
DW3 says that it was purchased at Shivajinagar,
Bengaluru and again it was deposed that it was purchased
from Sub-Registrar Office. All discrepancies were also
taken note of by the trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
HC-KAR
10. Apart from that, the First Appellate Court also, on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence,
observed that though, document Ex.D1 is marked as a
consent document, it was marked subject to objection.
DW2 and DW3, being the executants, were also examined
as witnesses before the Court, but the plaintiff
categorically denied the same. The said document is also
not a registered document and the same cannot be
considered and is not an admissible document. The First
Appellate Court also, in paragraph No.38 discussed the
same in detail. When the document Ex.D1 is not a
registered document and also not executed on proper
stamp paper, the same cannot be considered as an
admissible document.
11. Defendant No.1 has not chosen to examine the
person, who has lent the amount to Nadipanna and has
also not produced any loan document for having availed
the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. Nothing is placed on record
even for having paid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. A
NC: 2025:KHC:43798
HC-KAR
detailed discussion was made by the First Appellate Court
and the same was confirmed. When such being the case,
the very contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants that Ex.D1 was not considered cannot be
accepted, as the same is not an admissible document and
was also not registered. Hence, the question of framing
any substantial question of law does arise.
12. Hence I do not find any ground to admit and frame
any substantial question of law in this second appeal.
Hence, I pass the following order:
a) The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
HA
