Sri Manu @ Manjunath Vs Kum Damini — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Manu @ Manjunath Vs Kum Damini — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below (including the plaintiff's 7/108th share in 'A' schedule property Item Nos.1 to 3) stand.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff (granddaughter of late Gujjaiah) is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as joint family property, against the defendants' specific defence that land bearing Sy.No.290/1 at Kalasthavadi village is tenanted/self-acquired property and not joint family property. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court finds no error on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in granting the relief to the plaintiff.

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, and no ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the second appeal and frame a substantive question of law.

Key takeaways

This Court accepts the courts below' conclusion that the defendants, despite filing a written statement, did not enter the witness box and did not substantiate their contention to prove Issue No.2.ratio¶53
This Court notes that the defendants produced no document and no grant certificate to show that the property was exclusively granted to late Gujjaiah in his individual capacity, supporting the conclusion that it was joint family property granted on behalf of his family.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings — Plaintiff, granddaughter of late Gujjaiah, held entitled to 7/108th share in 'A' schedule property Item Nos.1 to 3 as joint family property by the Trial Court (OS No.678/2015, V Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, decree dated 31.08.2020); claim over 'B' schedule property dismissed — First Appellate Court (R.A.No.65/2021, VII Addl. District Judge, Mysuru, judgment dated 22.08.2022) confirmed — Defendants' defence that Sy.No.290/1, Kalasthavadi village, was tenanted/self-acquired property exclusively granted to late Gujjaiah not substantiated: no evidence led, no documents or grant certificate produced, defendants did not enter the witness box — High Court (H.P. Sandesh J) found no error or perversity in the concurrent findings and no ground to invoke Section 100 CPC to admit the appeal and frame a substantive question of law — Second appeal dismissed (11.11.2025).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2022 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MANJU @ MANJUNATH S/O LATE GUJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

SRI. MAHADEVA S/O LATE GUJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. ESHWARA S/O LATE GUJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

SRI. KRISHANA S/O LATE GUJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

SRI. SWAMY S/O LATE GUJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O LATE GUJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

SRI. DARSHAN S/O MANJU @ MANJUNATH AND LATE GEETHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT: SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

KUM. DAMINI D/O MANJU @ MANJUNATH AND LATE GEETHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570003.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PANCHAM R.D., ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.No.65/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2020 PASSED IN OS No.678/2015 ON THE FILE

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff is that 1^st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and properties are the joint family properties and she is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants took the specific defence that land bearing Sy.No.290/1 situated at Kalasthavadi village is the tenanted property and not the joint family property. Hence, parties were permitted to lead evidence and plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and to substantiate the case,

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32. On the other hand, defendants have not lead any evidence and also not marked any documents.

The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that property belongs to the joint family and though it is contented that it is a self acquired property and answered the Issue No.1 as affirmative and Issue No.2 as negative and contention of the defendants was not accepted. The Trial Court granted the relief of 7/108^th share in the ‘A’ schedule property Item Nos.1 to 3. But, in respect of ‘B’-schedule property, claim is dismissed, the same is challenged before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court in R.A.No.65/2021 in paragraph No.22 in detail discussed and re-iterated the reasoning of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that defendants have not placed any material to show that the same is a self acquired property nor produced the grant certificate to the effect that

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

property is exclusively granted to the name of late Gujjaiah and hence comes to the conclusion that granddaughter of Gujjaiah is also entitled for a share over the property and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants that judgment of both the Courts are not based on the sound and proper reasoning and fails to take note of documentary evidence and oral evidence and not justified in allotting the share to the plaintiff during the lifetime of her father in the respect of self acquired property of deceased Gujjaiah and the reasoning given by both the Courts that property is not exclusively belongs to the Gujjaiah which is not correct.

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the property belongs

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

to Gujjaih not placed any material and further contend that in order to prove that the said property is a selfacquired property of Gujjaiah, nothing is placed on record. Hence, rightly comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for the relief in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 and the plaintiff also not challenged with regard to the dismissal of the suit in respect of ‘B’ schedule property.

Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and particularly taking note of pleading of plaintiff before the Trial Court, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that suit schedule property belongs to the joint family and plaintiff is also out of the wedlock of defendant No.1 and Geeta, she was born. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the children of defendant No.6 and all are the members of joint family. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 had ill-treated Geetha in order to bring dowry from her parent's house and they murdered Geetha on 16.10.2004. In this regard, criminal case also registered. The plaintiff being a minor child was under the care and

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

custody of grandmother and also taking into note of pleading and also the defence which was taken in the written statement that it is a self acquired property of Gujjaiah and the same is not substantiated by the defendants. The fact that they constitute a joint family is not in dispute. It is the reasoning of Trial Court that property is granted in favour of Gujjaiah and on behalf of his family and not the same in his individual capacity since the defendants have not produced any document to substantiate their contention, even not produced any grant certificate in order to comes to such a conclusion. Having considered this aspect, the Trial Court comes to a conclusion in detail discussing the material available on record that plaintiff has established her case in paragraph Nos.15 to 17 and so also the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph Nos.22 to 24, comes to the conclusion that appellants/defendants except filing their written statement before the Trial Court, they were not entered into the

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45678 RSA No. 1649 of 2022

HC-KAR

witness box to substantiate their case and the same is not substantiated and material also discloses that defendants though filed the written statement, not substantiated their contention to prove the Issue No.2. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and Appellate Court in granting the relief. When there is no any perversity in the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit and frame substantive question of law.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

Second appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27