Smt Lakshmamma Vs Smt Narayanamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Smt Narayanamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the regular second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage and no substantial question of law was framed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal should be admitted and substantial questions of law framed, notwithstanding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the rival wills (registered Will Ex.D1 versus unregistered Will Ex.P13). +1 more

Court's answer

No ground was found to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law; the appeal was therefore dismissed at the admission stage.

Ratio / Principle

No error or perversity was found in the Trial Court's and the First Appellate Court's appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence; their concurrent findings were allowed to stand.

Key takeaways

The Will Ex.D1 was held proved by the examination of witnesses and as a registered document executed long back.ratio¶110
Ex.P13, the unregistered Will relied upon by the plaintiff, was not accepted by either Court because there was no pleading in the plaint regarding its execution by Narayanappa.ratio¶110
P.W.1's cross-examination admission that her younger brother Ashwathappa affixed his LTM signature on Ex.D1 was held to establish that he was one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.D1.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), RSA No.1836 of 2024 (PAR) [NC 2025:KHC:49848], Justice H.P. Sandesh, 01.12.2025 — Partition second appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed at the admission stage; no substantial question of law framed. The Trial Court (OS No.13/2013, Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Gowribidanur; decree 31.03.2023) and the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.42/2023, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura; decree 19.10.2024) had concurrently upheld the registered Will Ex.D1 dated 23.02.2006 of Narayanappa — proved through witnesses D.W.2 and D.W.3, with P.W.1 herself admitting in cross-examination that her brother Ashwathappa affixed his LTM signature as attesting witness — and rejected the plaintiff's unregistered Will Ex.P13 dated 31.12.2005 as unproved and unsupported by any plaint pleading or declaratory relief. The High Court found no error or perversity in the concurrent findings; both sides admitted the schedule properties belonged to Narayanappa. Post-Will alienations noted: item No.1 sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.6 (claimed for family benefit/legal necessity) and onward to defendant No.9; item No.2 sold by defendant No.1 and her children to defendant No.6 on 22.03.2013 and resold to defendant No.9 through Ex.D17 on 14.12.2015. Statutes engaged: Section 100 CPC; Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (I.A.No.1 for additional evidence); Section 68, Indian Evidence Act; Section 63, Indian Succession Act.

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1836 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATASWAMY D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MARIYAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN AND TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O G. GANGAIAH D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT IDRAHALLI VILLAGE MAJARA CHINNAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK C.B. PURA DISTRICT-561 209.

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS .

SMT. ESHWARAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

SRI. PRAKASHA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE R/AT BEHIND ST. JOSEPH CONVENT SCHOOL, CHICKBALLAPUR CITY, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101.

SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT BESIDE VIDYA NIDHI SCHOOL MADAVANAGARA GOWRIBIDANUR CITY CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

SMT. VENKATAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA

W/O VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT GEDDALAPALYA VILLAGE HADOHALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

SMT. RADHA D/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

SMT. RENUKA D/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

SMT. RAJINI D/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 13 ARE R/AT GEDDLAPALYA VILLAGE THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 077.

SMT. NIRMALA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT IDAGURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI. RAGHU S/O GOPALA SWAMY

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT 203, VINAYAKA APARTMENTS BOOPASANDRA

BANGALORE-94.

SRI. M.S. NAGARAJ S/O M. SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT 303 VINAYAKA APARTMENTS BOOPASANDRA

BANGALORE-94.

SRI. G.P. RAJASHEKHAR

S/O PUTTACHAR

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT “C” DIVISION, V.V. PURAM GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN AND TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

SRI. DODDAPILAPPA

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

SMT. THYAVVA W/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

SRI. GANGARAJU S/O LATE DODDAPILAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.18 TO 20 ARE R/AT KANDAVARAPETE OLD AEO ROAD

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

OPP: BHYRAWESHWARA NILAYA CHICKBALLAPUR CITY - TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 103.

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT JAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE IDAGUR MAZARA, KASABA HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANNAKKI UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R17)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.13/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.

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

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveatorrespondent No.17.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of herself and the defendants.

The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that defendant No.1 claims that Narayanappa has executed a registered Will in her favour on 23.02.2006. It is also the contention of defendant No.1 that he has sold item No.1 for family benefit and legal necessity in favour of defendant No.6 and in turn, defendant No.6 sold the property in favour of defendant No.9. The Trial Court taking note of pleadings of defendant No.9 also framed additional

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

issue that defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 on 22.03.2013. Thereafter, defendant Nos.6 to 8 have sold item No.2 in his favour on 14.12.2015 and thus, he is a bonafide purchaser of item No.2 and considering the written statement of defendant No.9 also framed an issue that item No.2 is the self-acquired property of Narayanappa and Mulubagilamma.

The trial Court having considered the pleadings and also the issues, allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff, in order to prove the case, examined herself as P.W.1 and examined four witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.5 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P12 and unregistered Will dated 31.12.2005 as Ex.P13. On the other hand, defendant No.1, in support of her contention examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined in total 5 witnesses as D.W.2 to D.W.6 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D27 original registered Will, mutation, RTC extracts, original SPA deed, Encumbrance Certificates, certified copy of the registered sale deed three in numbers as Exs.D15 to 17, mutations, hissa tippani, survey atlas, Akar Bandh and RTC Extracts.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

The Trial Court considering both oral and

documentary evidence accepted the case of the defendants and not accepted the case of the plaintiff and answered issue No.1 as ‘negative’ and issue No.2 as ‘affirmative’ that there was a registered Will and the same is proved by examining the witnesses and dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial Court has not appreciated both oral and documentary evidence in a proper manner and whether it requires interference and also framed a point whether the appellant has made out a ground to consider I.A.No.1 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC and answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ and point No.3 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff accepting the case of defendants i.e., original registered Will Ex.D1 and not believed the document of Ex.P13. While doing so, particularly,

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

taken note of the evidence of witnesses in paragraph Nos.28 to 31 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in relying upon document of Ex.D1 and ignored the document of Ex.P13 executed by Narayanappa at an undisputed point of time, dividing the schedule properties equally among the plaintiff and the defendants. The counsel would vehemently contend that no reasons are assigned for disinheriting the other family members and also counsel would vehemently contend that earlier Will was dated 23.02.2006 and the executant Narayanappa died on 26.02.2006 within a span of 3 days. The counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts were not justified in dismissing the suit ignoring the fact that Sy.No.55/3 is the joint family property of Nagappa. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for caveatorrespondent No.17 would vehemently contend that document which the plaintiff relies upon i.e., Ex.P13 is an unregistered

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

10 -

HC-KAR

document and the same has not been proved. The Will which is marked on behalf of the defendants is Ex.D1 and the same is proved which is a registered Will. Even the Trial Court has taken note of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and also Section 63 of Indian Succession Act in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 and reasons are assigned with regard to proving of earlier Will and not accepted the case of the plaintiff and witness D.W.2, who is the son of late Srirama Naik, the Scribe of Ex.D11 identifies his father's signature as Ex.D1(a). Though, he was cross-examined, even remotely, no suggestion was put to him that he is not the son of late Srirama Naik and said Srirama Naik was not the deed writer by profession. He denies the suggestion that his father has not prepared and signed Ex.D1. He also denies the suggestion that he is falsely deposing before the Court to help defendant No.1 and nothing is elicited from the mouth of D.W.2. So also in respect of D.W.3, one of the attesters of Ex.D1, she has deposed in her examination-inchief that her elder paternal uncle bequeathed his properties in her sister Narayanamma's name and the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 is accepted. The First Appellate Court also in detail

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

considered both oral and documentary evidence and confirmed the same and it does not require any interference.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.17, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that suit schedule properties are joint family properties. It is the case of the defendant that properties are the separate properties of the executant and both the plaintiff and the defendants claim the suit schedule properties based on Ex.P13 as well as Ex.D1 respectively. The Trial Court in detail taken note of evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in coming to the conclusion that the Ex.D1-Will is a registered document and nothing is elicited from the mouth of D.Ws.2 and 3 to disbelieve the case of the defendants with regard to the Will is concerned and nothing elicited that Will is surrounded by doubtful circumstances. Apart from that the Trial Court also taken note of Ex.P13 which is an unregistered Will relied upon by the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion that the same is not proved by placing any credible evidence before the Court and particularly taken note of evidence of attesting witnesses'. The First Appellate Court also while reassessing the material

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

available on record, keeping in view the contentions urged in the appeal memo taken note that defendants have marked the document Ex.D1 dated 23.02.2006 and the same is discussed in paragraph No.25 and also taken note of the case of the plaintiff that marked Ex.P13 is an unregistered Will which is relied upon by the plaintiff and also taken note of the fact that in order to prove the document of Will Ex.P13, the plaintiff has examined two attesting witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5.

The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that plaintiff never pleaded in her plaint about execution of Ex.P13Will deed by deceased Narayanappa. In the absence of pleadings, any amount of evidence will not help the plaintiff to claim the relief on the basis of Ex.P13-Will deed and not sought for any declaratory relief in respect of Ex.P13 Will deed and considering the discussion made in paragraph Nos.24 and 25 and particularly, the evidence of witnesses D.W.2 and D.W.3 which has been discussed in paragraph No.26 and considered the material in paragraph No.27 with regard to nature of the property is concerned and observed that D.W.3-Ashwathamma is the sister of both plaintiff and defendant No.1, who is not an

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

13 -

HC-KAR

attesting witness to Ex.D1-Will deed. However, she has supported the defendant No.1 by stating that her elder brother Ashwathappa puts his LTM signature on Ex.D1-Will deed. The First Appellate Court also considered the cross-examination on the part of P.W.1, wherein she has admitted that her younger brother Ashwathappa puts his LTM on the Will deed executed by Narayanappa and suggestion was made to P.W.1 that one Ashwathappa, son of Venkatappa has signed Will deed for which she has answered that they have obtained the LTM signature of her younger brother on the Will deed when he was suffering from ill-health. This admission made by P.W.1Lakshmamma clearly establishes that one of the attesting witness of Ex.D1 is her younger brother and also P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her brother Ashwathappa put his LTM on Ex.D1-Will deed and it is her explanation that his LTM signature was obtained on Ex.D1 when he was suffering from ill-health. All these materials were taken note of and particularly in paragraph Nos.29 and 31 comes to the conclusion that Ex.D1-Will is proved by examining witnesses D.W.2 and D.W.3 and subsequently, item No.2 of the property was sold on 22.03.2013 by defendant No.1 and her children in

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

HC-KAR

favour of defendant No.6, then, in turn, she sold the property in favour of defendant No.9 through Ex.D17 on 14.12.2015 and

all these factors were taken note of that subsequent to execution of Will also, item No.2 of the property was sold which is discussed in paragraph Nos.30 and 31 and it is also admitted by both the parties that suit schedule properties belong to Narayanappa and no dispute with regard to the said fact is concerned. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record and no perversity is found in the findings of both the Courts. The Will-Ex.D1 is proved by examining the witnesses and the said Will is also a registered document and the same was executed long back and when there was no pleading on the part of the plaintiff with regard to Ex.P13 which is also an unregistered document, the same was not accepted by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

NC: 2025:KHC:49848 RSA No. 1836 of 2024

15 -

HC-KAR

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 19.10.2024 passed in R.A.No.42/2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023 passed in OS No.13/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur.¶59
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura · 19.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Original suit OS No.13/2013 instituted by the plaintiff (now appellant) seeking partition and separate possession, on the plea that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties of herself and the defendants.¶69
Prior proceeding
On defendant No.9's written statement, the Trial Court framed additional issues, including that defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 on 22.03.2013, that defendant Nos.6 to 8 sold item No.2 to defendant No.9 on 14.12.2015 making him a bona fide purchaser, and that item No.2 was the self-acquired property of Narayanappa and Mulubagilamma.¶74
Prior proceeding
Evidence record: plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 with four witnesses (P.W.2 to P.W.5) and marked Exs.P1 to P12 plus unregistered Will dated 31.12.2005 as Ex.P13; defendant No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 with five witnesses (D.W.2 to D.W.6) and marked Exs.D1 to D27 including the original registered Will.¶75
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur) dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023, accepting the defendants' case, answering issue No.1 as negative and issue No.2 as affirmative that the registered Will was proved.¶80
Prior proceeding
First appeal R.A.No.42/2023: the First Appellate Court formulated points on proper appreciation of evidence and on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, answered points 1 and 2 as negative and point 3 as affirmative, and confirmed the Trial Court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit.¶85