High Court dismissed a regular second appeal filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging a Judgment and Decree dismissing their suit seeking declaration as absolute owners and partition of properties. Court upheld concurrent findings that disputed land was self-acquired.
Regular second appeal dismissed; all pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT SOLURU VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK - 562 127, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH, R/AT LAKSHMIPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562 123, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
W/O GOVINDRAJU, D/O LATE.PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NC: 2023:KHC:46116 RSA No. 794 of 2023
R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI), MAGADI TQ - 562 127, RAMANAGARA DIST.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2021 PASSED IN RA NO.13/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.48/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who have questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession is dismissed.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
The original plaintiff, Pillappa, filed a suit against the widow of Ganganarasimhaiah. The original plaintiff, Pillappa and Ganganarasimhaiah, are full brothers. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of suit 'A' schedule properties in terms of oral partition and in the alternate, he sought partition of schedule 'B' properties. The original plaintiff contended that one Kadarappa is the propositus and he had five sons, namely,
Ganganarasimhaiah, Puttanarasimhaiah, the original plaintiff, Pillappa, S.K.Narasimhaiah and
Chikkanarasimhaiah. The original plaintiff, referring to schedule 'A' properties, contended that these properties were allotted to him in a family partition. The original plaintiff specifically contended that the suit agricultural land bearing Sy.No.57, measuring 4 acres 32 guntas, was purchased in the name of his elder brother, Ganganarasimhaiah, i.e, husband of defendant No.1 and that it was jointly cultivated by the family members. The original plaintiff claimed that he had constructed a residential house in Sy.No.57. Alleging that defendants are denying share in Sy.No.57, the present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit 'A' schedule properties based on oral partition and consequently sought partition in 'B' schedule properties by contending that suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties.
NC: 2023:KHC:46116 RSA No. 794 of 2023
substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.
affirmative, the Trial Court, referring to several admissions elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1, held that item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties bearing Sy.No.57 is the selfacquired property of the husband of defendant No.1. The admissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 are culled out by the Trial Court. The original plaintiff, in his cross-examination, has admitted that Sy.No.57 was purchased by the husband of defendant No.1 in 1972. The original plaintiff has further admitted that, based on the sale deed, Ganganarasimhaiah's name was duly mutated in the revenue records. He has further admitted that Ganganarasimhaiah and defendant No.1 are residing separately. He has further admitted that Ganganarasimhaiah was into business and had independent earnings, and from the said independent earnings, he has purchased Sy.No.57. The plaintiff further admitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in exclusive possession of Sy.No.57 after the demise of
Ganganarasimhaiah. Referring to these admissions elicited
NC: 2023:KHC:46116 RSA No. 794 of 2023
in cross-examination, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court.
that there is oral partition in the family and therefore, he has sought relief of declaration to declare him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The original plaintiff has further contended that schedule 'B' properties are also ancestral properties. The defendants have admitted the entire claim of the original plaintiff except item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties, i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.57. The defendants admit oral partition and the entire claim of the original plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, on the contrary, claimed that item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties, i.e., agricultural land
NC: 2023:KHC:46116 RSA No. 794 of 2023
bearing Sy.No.57, is the self-acquired property of Ganganarasimhaiah, who is the husband of defendant No.1. Both the Courts referring to the cross-examination of plaintiff, have concurrently held that plaintiff has failed to substantiate that agricultural land bearing Sy.No.57 is joint family ancestral property. Admissions culled out in cross-examination of P.W.1 are culled out by the Trial Court at paragraph No.7. The severance in the family in 1980 is also culled out while cross-examining P.W.2. The Trial Court, referring to Exs.D.9 and 10 has come to the conclusion that defendants have also succeeded in substantiating that there is already partition. Reliance is placed on Exs.D.9 and 10.
admitted in unequivocal terms that item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties is the self-acquired property of the husband
of defendant No.1. He has also admitted exclusive possession of defendant No.1 over item No.2 of 'B' schedule properties. He has also admitted in unequivocal terms that his brother Ganganarasimhaiah purchased item
No.2 of schedule 'B' properties out of his independent earnings. If these significant details are looked into, then I am of the view that findings recorded by the Courts below insofar as item No.2 in schedule 'B' properties is concerned, do not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal stand dismissed .
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the regular second appeal should be allowed against the judgment dismissing the suit for partition and declaration.
Whether the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.57 is joint family ancestral property or self-acquired property of Ganganarasimhaiah.
Whether the findings of the Courts below regarding lack of substantial question of law are sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VENKATAMMA
NARASHIMHAMURTHY
VIJAYALAKSHMI
LAKSHMIKANTHA
GIRISHKUMAR
HARISHKUMAR
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
