Smt. Narayanamma Vs Sri. Narayanappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Narayanamma Vs Sri. Narayanappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2006 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.148, KADRIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563101

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M (BY SMT. VEENAKUMARI M AND Location: HIGH COURT OF SRI AKERSH B R, ADVOCATES) KARNATAKA

AND:

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS KADRIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563101

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

SMT. MUNIYALLAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS R/O HUDAKAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR – 563114

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE VENKATRAMAIAH AGED 55 YEARS KADRIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563101

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE S NARAYANAPPA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT KARIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563101

SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LAET VENKATAARAMAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT KARIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563101

SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED 47 YEARS R/O HUNAKUNDRA VILLAGE

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

KASABA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK - 563114 KOLAR DISTRICT

SRI. S P SENAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPUTTAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/O 1^ST CROSS NEAR SHUBHASH VIDYA SAMSTHE OPPOSTIE OT KARNJIKATTE KOLAR – 563101

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MATARAPPA AGED 70 YEARS R/AT KADRIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563101

SRI. MARIRAJU DEAD BY LRS

SMT. GAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE MARIRAJU AGED 62 YEARS

SRI. RAJESH S/O LATE MARIRAJU AGED 42 YEARS

SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE MARIRAJU AGED 38 YEARS

SRI. LOKESH S/O LATE MARIRAJU

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

AGED 35 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE R/AT KADRIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK – 563101

SRI. SRINIVASA S/O ANJANEYAPPA AGED 51 YEARS R/O MARJENAHALLI VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The order sheet discloses that on 15.07.2024, at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the case was adjourned for two weeks on cost of Rs.2,000/- and even in spite of cost was imposed and same was paid, today again the proxy counsel seeks time in the afternoon session. In the morning session when page wise case was called, the proxy counsel requested for an adjournment but this Court declined to grant time.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming that the plaintiff is the legal heir of one Venkataramaiah and they are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and suit schedule property is an ancestral and joint family property. Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 have taken the defence in the written statement that the plaintiff is the stranger to their family and not the daughter of Venkataramaiah and they have succeeded to the property of Venkataramaiah under a family partition. Trial Court also framed additional issues that whether defendant Nos.1 to 6

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

prove that plaintiff is not the daughter of Venkataramaiah and whether defendant Nos.1 to 6 further prove that defendant Nos.1 to 5 subsequent to the partition by Venkataramaiah have further partitioned the properties. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered issue No.1 as negative in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff and defendants are not the members of the Hindu undivided divided joint family and the suit schedule property is not an ancestral property and also accepted the defence of the defendants that plaintiff is not the daughter of Venkataramaiah and already there was a partition and already there was a further partition among the defendants and dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.21/2021. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, formulated the point that whether the Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Venkataramaiah and whether the trial Court failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

HC-KAR

whether judgment and decree of the trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both the oral and documentary evidence on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff was not the daughter of Venkataramaiah and answered the Point Nos.2 to 4 as negative. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is capricious and not sustainable under law and findings of both the Courts are contrary to the evidence and material on record. Though the counsel for the appellant indicated the substantive question of law contending that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is erroneous, capricious and not appreciated the material on record, not suggested any substantive question of law except the facts and also there is a concurrent finding with regard to the factual aspects that plaintiff is not proved that she is a daughter of one Venkataramaiah producing any documentary proof. On the other hand, the defendants proved that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Venkataramaiah. When

NC: 2025:KHC:41225 RSA No. 2006 of 2021

8 -

HC-KAR

such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame the substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN