Dismissed¶114

K Nagabhushana v. Smt Aswathamma

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2025RSA/1756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), 04-08-2025, V Srishananda J, RSA No.1756/2022 c/w RSA No.1595/2022, NC: 2025:KHC:30145. Partition suit maintainability; ancestral vs joint family vs self-acquired property; registered sale deed 1937 by Venkatalakshmamma; 1974 sale to Ashwathamma (unchallenged); registered gift deed dated 16.10.2015 to Ramachandra; suit during owner's lifetime per se not maintainable; no pre-existing rights in collaterals; substantial questions of law (perversity, S.14(1) Hindu Succession Act without pleadings, adverse inference, gift deed) all rejected; both second appeals dismissed; S.100 CPC; Chickballapur; Family Court first appeals confirmed.

What did the court decide?

None; both regular second appeals dismissed as meritless. ¶114

K Nagabhushana Vs Smt Aswathamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both regular second appeals dismissed as meritless.

¶114

Issue for consideration

Whether the appreciation of evidence and documents by the courts below is perverse (substantial question No.1 in both appeals). +4 more

¶70

Court's answer

The very basis for filing the suits - that the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties - is itself incorrect, because Venkatalakshmamma had purchased the property from her vendor by virtue of a registered sale deed in the year 1937.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Venkatalakshmamma enjoyed the property absolutely and had every right and capacity to sell the same in favour of Ashwathamma in the year 1974.

¶10

Key takeaways

The 1974 alienation by Venkatalakshmamma in favour of Ashwathamma under the registered sale deed was not called in question even after Venkatalakshmamma's death, until the filing of the suits in O.S.Nos.69/2018 and 56/2016.ratio¶11
A suit for partition and separate possession on the ground that the suit property is joint family property, filed during the lifetime of Ashwathamma, is per se not maintainable; accordingly, the dismissal of the suit by both the courts is just and proper.ratio¶12
Since the suit property was the absolute property of Venkatalakshmamma, conveyed to Ashwathamma by the 1974 sale deed and thereafter conveyed by Ashwathamma to Ramachandra by registered gift deed, there cannot be any other right or arrangement which is legal, as the others claiming rights over the property have no pre-existing rights.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeals (S.100 CPC) - companion appeals RSA No.1756/2022 (by two children of Ashwathamma) and RSA No.1595/2022 (by the children of Ramaiah, brother of the late Krishnappa) against the common first-appellate judgments and decrees dated 16.09.2022 in RA.Nos.23/2021 and 15/2021 (Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapura) confirming dismissal of their partition suits (O.S.No.69/2018 and OS No.56/2016, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur). Title: Venkatalakshmamma purchased the property under a registered sale deed in 1937, sold it to her daughter-in-law Ashwathamma in 1974, and that alienation was never challenged; Ashwathamma later gifted the property to her son Ramachandra by registered gift deed dated 16.10.2015. Held (V Srishananda, J., oral judgment): the suit property was never ancestral or joint family property; a partition suit on that footing during Ashwathamma's lifetime is per se not maintainable and its dismissal by both courts below is just and proper; with the property conveyed to Ramachandra by registered gift deed, the other claimants have no pre-existing rights; consequently none of the substantial questions of law - perverse appreciation, justification of dismissal, invocation of S.14(1) Hindu Succession Act without pleading, non-drawing of adverse inference, and the self-acquisition/gift-deed finding - merited consideration. Both appeals dismissed. NC: 2025:KHC:30145.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1756 OF 2022 (PAR) C/W

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1595 OF 2022 (PAR)

¶9

IN RSA No. 1756/2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

N. NAGABHUSHANA

¶12

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. ANANDAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA W/O NARANASWAMY AGED 49 YEARS,

¶15

RESIDING AT DODDAMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIJJAVARA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶16

(BY SRI. RAKESH BHATT, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. ASWATHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED 81 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. SUNANDAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 RESIDING AT KANJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶26

SRI. SREENIVASA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶27

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶28

SRI. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶30

ALL ARE R/AT KANJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2022

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

PASSED IN RA.NO.23/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.69/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR.

¶37

IN RSA NO. 1595/2022

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

SRI. SREENIVASA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶40

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶41

SRI. VENUGOPAL D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶42

SRI. RAJANNA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶43

ALL ARE R/AT KANJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶44

...APPELLANTS

¶45

(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

SMT. ASWATHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

NAGABHOOSHAN S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶51

VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶52

SMT. ANANDAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶53

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶54

SMT SUNANDAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶55

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KANJENHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶56

...RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. RAKESH BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4)

¶58

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.15/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2021 PASSED IN OS No.56/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR.

¶59

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

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶61

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶64

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶65

counsel for respondents in these two appeals.

¶66

These two appeals are filed by one of the sons of Ashwathamma according to the genealogical tree, who is the common prepositus after the death of Krishnappa

¶67

and the children of Krishnappa’s brother.

¶68

Following are the substantial questions of law raised in both the appeals:

¶69

IN RSA No.1756/2022 :

¶70

1. "Whether the appreciation of evidence and documents by the courts below is perverse?

¶71

2. Whether the courts are justified in dismissing the suit of the appellants in the facts and circumstance of the case?

¶72

3. Without there being a pleading and evidence, whether the Courts below erred in invoking section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

¶73

4. Whether the courts below erred in not drawing adverse inference against the defendants in light of the fact that defendant no.1 was kept away from the witness box though she was the

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

only competent witness to speak about the alleged sale deed in her favour?

¶78

5. Whether the courts below erred in holding the sit property is self acquired property of Ashwathamma (Defendant No.1) and thereby upholding the alleged gift deed in favour of Sri.Ramachandra (Defendant No.5)?

¶79

IN RSA No.1595/2022 :

¶80

1. Whether the appreciation of evidence and documents by the courts below is perverse?

¶81

2. Whether the courts are justified in dismissing the suit of the appellants in the facts and circumstance of the case?

¶82

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

¶83

disposal of the present appeals are as under:

¶84

4.1. Suit property earlier belonged to

¶85

Venkatalakshmamma wife of Byrappa. Said property was acquired by Venkatalakshmamma by virtue of the registered sale deed in the year 1937.

¶86

Venkatalakshmamma sold the property in the year 1974 by way of registered sale deed in favour of Ashwathamma. Ashwathamma is wife of Krishnappa and one of the daughters-in-law of Venkatalakshmamma.

¶87

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

Venkatalakshmamma had two more sons namely Ramaiah and Adinarayana. Ashwathamma gifted the property in favour of Ramachandra who is one of her sons by way of registered gift deed dated 16.10.2015.

¶90

4.2. Present appellants being the other children of Ashwathamma and children of Ramaiah who is the brother in law of Ashwathamma, have filed these two appeals challenging the dismissal of suit and denying the share.

¶91

Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that they have also right and interest in the suit property and there was an unregistered compromise entered into among the children of Ashwathamma. Therefore, they contended that dismissal of the suit is bad in law.

¶92

Whereas, the appellant in RSA No.1595/2022, Sri.K.N.Nithish, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that, the inter se arrangement among the children

¶93

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

of Ashwathamma affects independent rights of appellant who are the grandchildren of Ramaiah and therefore, appeal needs to be admitted.

¶96

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the appeal grounds as well as the substantial questions of law.

¶97

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶98

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the very basis for filing the suit that the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties itself is incorrect inasmuch as Venkatalakshmamma had purchased the property from her vendor by virtue of registered sale deed in the year 1937.

¶99

Later on, she enjoyed the property absolutely and she had every right and capacity to sell the same in favour of AshwatHamma in the year 1974.

¶100

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30145 RSA No. 1756 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 1595 of 2022

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

It is pertinent to note that alienation made by Venkatalakshmamma in favour of Ashwathamma by virtue of registered sale deed in the year 1974 is not called in question even after the death of Venkatalakshmamma till the filing of suits in O.S.Nos.69/2018 and 56/2016.

¶103

Ashwathamma is still alive and in her life time, she has executed a registered gift deed in favour of Ramachandra who is the contesting respondent in these appeals. Therefore, very suit filed for partition and separate possession on the ground that the suit property is a joint family property that too in the lifetime of Ashwathamma is per se not maintainable. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit by both the Courts is just and proper.

¶104

Since suit property was the absolute property of Venkatalakshmamma which has been conveyed to Ashwathamma by virtue of sale deed in the year 1974 and Ashwathamma having conveyed the property in favour of Ramachandra by registered gift deed, there cannot be any

¶105