Sri B Lakshminarayanappa vs Smt Prathibha
2026 Latest Caselaw 2863 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Lakshminarayanappa vs Smt Prathibha on 2 April, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:17969
                                                         RSA No. 849 of 2021


                   HC-KAR




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                             BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.849 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI B LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
                   S/O B NARAYANAPPA
                   ADOPTED SON OF B RAMAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                   R/AT SANTHEKALLA HALLI-563128
                   KAIWARA HOBLI
                   CHINTHAMANI TALUK
                   CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD E, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   SMT. PRATHIBHA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M             D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
Location: HIGH
                        W/O S I NAGARAJ
COURT OF                AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
KARNATAKA
                   2.   SMT. SHOBHA
                        D/O PRAKASH
                        W/O LATE PRAKASH
                        AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

                        BOTH RESIDENTS OF
                        NO.171/5, 6TH MAIN ROAD
                        TYAGARAJA NAGARA
                        BENGALURU-560028
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI V VISHWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:17969
                                             RSA No. 849 of 2021


HC-KAR




     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2021
PASSED IN R.A.No.4/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, SITTING
AT CHINTAMANI AND ETC.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter was heard in part earlier at the stage of

admission and at the request of the learned counsel for the

appellant only, the matter was deferred for hearing further

arguments. Today, the counsel who files vakalath on behalf of

the appellant in his argument would vehemently contend that

suit is filed for the relief of declaration. The counsel mainly

would contend in his argument that sale deed was executed by

Byrappa in favour of Ramaiah in the year 1972 as per Ex.P2.

The counsel also would submit that another sale deed at Ex.D5

was executed by Narayanappa in favour of Ramaiah on the

very same day as per Ex.D5. The counsel also would submit

that one more document at Ex.D4 was executed by

Kamalamma, who is the second wife of Narayanappa, in favour

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

of Gowramma. The said Gowramma is none other than the wife

of Ramaiah. The counsel would vehemently contend that in

these documents i.e., Ex.P2, D4 and D5 there is a recital that

sale deeds are executed with a condition to devolve the

property in favour of children of Narayanappa who is none

other than the brother of Ramaiah. Hence, on that basis, the

appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of declaration.

The counsel also would submit that the document at Ex.P10-

Will was executed by the Ramaiah and his wife Gowramma and

based on the said Will also the plaintiff has become absolute

owner of the suit property. The counsel would submit that the

Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court committed an

error in dismissing the suit on the ground that not made out

any case to grant the relief of declaration. Hence, the matter

requires reconsideration and prays this Court to admit the

second appeal.

2. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the

respondents would submit that one Sonnamma is the wife of

Ramaiah and Ramaiah has got a daughter by name Jayamma

through his first wife Sonnamma and defendants are the legal

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

heirs of the said Jayamma. Thus, the question of disinheriting

the property of legal heirs of Ramaiah by executing a document

in favour of the appellant does not arise. The counsel would

submit that already Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court

come to the conclusion that there was no such Will. The

counsel also would submit that document of Ex.P10-Will is a

created document and the same was referred to the

handwriting expert and handwriting expert commissioner has

given the report that the signatures at Will are not the

signatures of Ramaiah and Gowramma and hence, both the

Courts disbelieved the case of the appellant/plaintiff. The

counsel also would submit that in paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is

specifically pleaded that the suit schedule properties are

absolutely belongs to Ramaiah and also contend that the said

Ramaiah had executed a Will. When the Courts comes to the

conclusion that there was no such Will in favour of the

appellant and the same is a created document, the question of

admitting the second appeal before this Court does not arise

since there is no any factual error and there is no any

substantive question of law before this Court to consider the

same in this second appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties and also on perusal of the material on

record, it discloses that it is not in dispute that there was a sale

deed in favour of Ramaiah which was executed by one Byrappa

in the year 1972 as per Ex.P2. So also, on the very same day,

Narayanappa had executed one more sale deed in favour of

Ramaiah in the year 1972 and the said document is marked as

Ex.D5. It is also not in dispute that the Kamalamma, who is the

second wife of the Narayanappa, had executed a sale deed in

favour of Gowramma in respect of two items of the properties

on 12.01.1995 as per Ex.D4 and the said property is the

absolute property of Kamalamma.

4. It is important to note that the counsel appearing

for the appellant argued before this Court vehemently that

when the condition was made in the sale deed itself, that

creates a right in favour of the appellant. Having perused the

plaint in which the relief is sought for declaration, it discloses

that there is no any specific averment that the

plaintiff/appellant would derive the right in respect of the suit

schedule properties based on the condition imposed in the sale

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

deeds at Ex.P2, D4 and D5. Hence, it is clear that as per Order

VI Rule 2 of CPC, there must be a clear particular details of

pleading and without the pleading, there cannot be any

evidence. Even if any evidence is adduced before the Court, the

same cannot be relied upon. Thus, it is the trite law that unless

there is a specific pleading in the plaint as per Order VI Rule 2

of CPC, the case of the plaintiff cannot be considered.

5. The counsel for the respondents submits that for

the first time in the second appeal, the counsel for the

appellant argued that there were conditions. The counsel also

brought to notice of this Court that in the written statement

also the defendants have specifically pleaded that there were

conditions in the said sale deeds. Having taken note of the

written statement also, it discloses that such defence was taken

while denying the very execution of the Will.

6. It is important to note that when the suit is filed for

the relief of declaration, the plaintiff must succeed in the suit

on his own legs and not on the weakness of the defendants.

Even if there is any such admission and recital in the

documents at Ex.P2, D4 and D5, when the absolute sale deeds

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

are executed, the vendor cannot put any condition that

property should devolve upon someone else and it is nothing

but a statutory devolution of right in favour of if any legal heirs.

The counsel appearing for the respondents also brought to

notice of this Court that Sonnamma is the first wife of Ramaiah

and also brought to notice of this Court to the admission on the

part of PW1 wherein PW1 admitted that Sonnamma is the first

wife of Ramaiah. When such admission is there, at this stage,

the appellant cannot deny the relationship of Sonnamma with

Ramaiah and the defendants are claiming through that

Sonnamma and that Sonnamma was having a daughter by

name Jayamma and they are claiming on that basis. When the

suit is filed for the relief of declaration, it is the bounden duty of

the plaintiff to prove his case on his own strength and not on

the weakness of the defendants. When the Trial Court taken

note that the Will is propounded by the appellant/plaintiff as

per Ex.P10 and court commissioner comes to the conclusion

that the said document is a created document and when the

suit is filed based on the will claiming that Ramaiah is the

absolute owner of the property and Ramaiah and Gowramma

had executed the Will in favour of the appellant as per Ex.P10,

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

both the Courts finding reached the finality in coming to such a

conclusion that Will is also not proved and not accepted the

case of the plaintiff. The scope of second appeal is only with

regard to the substantive question of law and no such

substantive question of law is made out by the appellant in this

second appeal.

7. No doubt counsel appearing for the appellant relies

upon judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC

1616 in the case of LACHMAN SINGH vs KIRPA SINGH

AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 7

wherein discussion made with regard to succession of property

under Section 15(1) and 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act and the

said judgment will not comes to the aid of the counsel for the

appellant since the appellant fails to prove that there was a Will

in his favour thus, question of inheriting the property does not

arise.

8. In respect of the other contention that Court can

mould the relief, the counsel relies upon the judgment reported

in 2025 LIVELAW (SC) 353 in the case of J GANAPATHA

AND OTHERS vs M/S N SELVARAJALOU CHETTY TRUST

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS and also the judgment

of this Court passed in R.S.A.No.3028/2006 connected with

R.S.A.No.3027/2006. No doubt, this Court considering the

judgment of Ramaiah's case comes to the conclusion that even

if the parties fail to prove the very declaration, if they are

entitled for half share in the property, the Court acting under

the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of CPC, is empowered to

mould the relief. But in the case on hand, the question of

mould the relief as contented by the counsel for the appellant

does not arise since, the suit is filed based on the Will. When

the legatee has not proved the Will, the question of moulding

the relief as contented by the counsel for the appellant does not

arise. Both the Courts have taken note of the said fact into

consideration and comes to the factual aspects of the Will which

has been propounded has not been proved by the appellant and

appellant also sought for the relief of declaration based on the

said Will. When both the Courts come to the conclusion that

Will has not been proved and the commissioner's opinion is also

against the appellant herein, the question of reconsideration

does not arise. Hence, I do not find any grounds to admit the

appeal and frame substantial questions of law.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17969

HC-KAR

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any,

do not survive for consideration and the same stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN