Second appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against decree granting plaintiffs, defendant 1 and defendant 2 one-fifth shares each in joint family properties. The court found the claimed oral partition unproven and no independent income of defendant No.2, held there was no substantial question of law, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 916 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
T. NARASIPURA TALUK -571 101.
…APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. Y. K. NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE)
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 5/2D, 4TH CORSS, 1ST STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSURU - 570 016.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2023 PASSED IN RA.No.380/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2020 PASSED IN OS No.12/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 passed in RA.No.380/2021 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Session Judge, Mysore, dismissing the appeal and
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2021 passed in OS.No.12/2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at T.Narasipura Mysore, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in part.
the plaintiffs that Item Nos.1 to 6 and 14 of the suit schedule properties were inherited by the defendant No.1 Suit Item Nos.7 to 13 properties are purchased out of nucleus of the Joint Family, consisting of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, as the defendant No.1 was kartha of the family, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 had agreed to purchase the properties in the name of defendant No.1 and therefore, those properties are
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
also purchased through the income derived from the Joint Family Properties and therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs is that, the entire schedule properties are the Joint Family Properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. It is further stated in the plaint that, there was no partition in the family in respect of suit schedule properties and later, the plaintiffs came to know that the 'Khata' in respect of the Item Nos.7 to 13 stand in the name of defendant No.3. It is stated by the plaintiffs that, the defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 got the Revenue records illegaly and further, registered a Gift deed dated 15.05.2011, was executed in respect of the item Nos.7 to 13 of the suit schedule properties.
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
partition Item Nos.7, 8 and 10 to 13 were allotted to the defendant No.2. Accordingly, it is the case of defendant No.2
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
that these properties are belonging to the defendant No.2. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
Item Nos.9 and 19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendants No.2 and 3 filed RA.No.380/2021 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after considering the material placed on record, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.12/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have preferred this second appeal.
on behalf of Sri.Y.K.Narayana, for the appellants and Sri. Bhargav G. learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
appearing for the appellants that both the courts below have ignored the oral partition said to have been made between the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the item
Nos. 8 to 10 are the self acquired properties of the defendant No.2 and the said aspect has been ignored by both the courts below, particularly, with regard to the oral partition in respect of the schedule properties and accordingly, sought for interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
GENEALOGICAL TREE
Subbeegowda @ Ramegowda Defendant 1
M.R.Rangaswamy Shivakuma Nagarathnamma Jayalakshmi Defendant 2 Plaintiff 1 Plaintiff 2 @Shilpa Plaintiff 3
Shobha (wife) Defendant 3
would indicate that, plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the children of defendant No.1. It is contend by the plaintiffs in the suit that, the schedule properties are the joint family properties of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiffs. Accordingly,
sought for respective share in schedule properties. On the other hand it is the case of defendant No.2 that, there was oral
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
partition in respect of the schedule properties and the item Nos.7, 8 and 10 to 13 are the self acquired property of the defendant No.2.
that, the properties in question are self acquired properties of defendant No.2. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
NC: 2024:KHC:30710 RSA No. 916 of 2023
perversity or illegality in the judgment and the decree passed by both the courts below and there is no substantial question of law required to be framed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances of the case, the appeal is liable to be rejected at the stage of admission itself.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Did an oral partition between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 occur, and are Items 7-13 the self-acquired property of defendant No.2 rather than joint family property?
Does the second appeal raise a substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M.R Rangaswamy
Smt. Shoba
Sri. Shivakumar
Smt. Nagarathnamma
Smt. Jayalakshmi @ Shilpa
E.S.Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
