Dismissed¶¶92

Smt. Sarojamma v. Sri. Hanumanthappa

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025RSA/2125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; joint family nucleus; burden of proof on plaintiff to show acquisition from joint family funds; PW-1 cross-examination admissions; Section 14 Hindu Succession Act; woman's absolute property; Section 100 CPC; regular second appeal Karnataka; concurrent findings; substantial question of law not framed; Davanagere Principal Senior Civil Judge and I Additional District and Sessions Judge; RSA No. 2125 of 2023; dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff has not substantiated that Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 were purchased out of the joint family nucleus (Items 1 and 3); nothing was placed on record showing their acquisition from joint family funds, and the concurrent conclusions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court stand affirmed. ¶¶82

Smt. Sarojamma Vs Sri. Hanumanthappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶92

Issue for consideration

Whether there are grounds or substantial questions of law warranting admission of the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings that Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 of the suit schedule are not joint family properties and that the plaintiff is not entitled to partition therein.

¶¶60

Court's answer

¶¶82

Ratio / Principle

The mere admission that the propositus Doddahanumanthappa was alive at the time of the purchases is not a ground to conclude that he had purchased Item Nos.2, 4 and 5.

¶¶83

Key takeaways

No ground is made out to admit the regular second appeal or to frame substantial questions of law.ratio¶¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings: plaintiff-widow claimed 1/6th share in five suit schedule items as joint family property of the family of propositus Doddahanumanthappa. Courts below held only Item Nos.1 and 3 to be joint family properties and decreed partition therein, holding Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 to be individual acquisitions (Item No.2 purchased by Durgamma and thereafter gifted; Item No.4 purchased by defendant No.3 and her husband from mill-closure compensation; Item No.5 purchased by defendant No.5), PW-1 having admitted in cross-examination the defendants' independent avocations and that no documents showed purchase out of joint family funds; Section 14 Hindu Succession Act applied to properties standing in a woman's name; burden lay on the plaintiff to establish joint family nucleus, which was not discharged. High Court held that mere aliveness of the propositus at the time of purchase does not prove his acquisition of the items, found no ground to admit the appeal or frame substantial questions of law, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2125 OF 2023 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O KAKKARAGOLLA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577589.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA. S/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. R/O 737/2, BETHUR ROAD, KORAMARA COLONY, DAVANAGERE 577001.

¶14

SMT DODDA THIMMAMMA. D/O LATE DODDA HANMANTHAPPA. AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O KAKKARAGOLLA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE - 577589.

¶15

SMT SANNA THIMMAMMA, D/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA, W/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT D NO 704/A, IMAM NAGAR, NEAR VENKATSHWARA TEMPLE, KORAMARA COLONY, BETHUR ROAD, IMAM NAGAR, DAVANAGERE 577001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA, W/O KARIBASAPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O 513/1, BASAVESHWARA SCHOOL ROAD, NEAR SHAKTHI GAS, MOUNESHWARA EXTENSION, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577004.

¶19

SMT PARVATHAMMA, D/O LATE DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA, W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O 9^TH WARD, 3^RD CROSS BEHIND THIRUMALESHWARA TEMPLE, ASHOKA ROAD, HIRIYUR 572103.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI NAGALINGAPPA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R5, R2 - SERVED)

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.50/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.190/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel

¶27

appearing for the respondents. This appeal is listed for admission.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The appeal is filed against the concurrent

¶31

finding. The present appellant is the plaintiff and as against the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court in dismissal of the suit in respect of Item Nos.2, 4 and 5, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶32

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties since the properties belong to the joint family. In total, the suit is filed for 5 items of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that during the lifetime of the propositus, Doddahanumanthappa, he had constituted a joint family along with his sons and daughters. He owned joint family properties which are the suit schedule properties. Doddahanumanthappa succeeded to the suit schedule properties from his ancestors and continued enjoying these properties along with his sons and daughters.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Therefore, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties.

¶36

On 21.06.2001, Doddahanumanthappa died

¶37

intestate. His wife Durgamma also died on 03.08.2014, leaving behind their sons and daughters as their legal heirs and successors to the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, the sons and daughters continued to enjoy the suit schedule properties jointly. On 28.08.2020, the husband of the plaintiff Gopalappa died leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir. Hence, while the plaintiff and defendants remain in joint possession of the suit schedule properties, the defendants have begun to mismanage the properties and have failed to partition the same despite the demand of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being a widow, has demanded that her 1/6^th share of the properties out of the suit schedule properties be divided and hand over. However, the defendants neglected her and did not come forward to give any share.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant

¶41

No.1 admitted the plaint paragraph Nos.2 and 3 but, denied the other averments and admitted the relationship between the parties and contends that the suit is not properly valued and also contends that Item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties are the only properties available for division as they were left behind by Doddahanumanthappa and the Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 are the exclusive properties of the defendants and the same are acquired by the defendants out of their own labour and sweat.

¶42

Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was a land belonging to one Koramara Thimmappa, which Durugamma had purchased on 23.12.1985 under the registered sale deed. She also executed a gift deed, gifting the property in favour of defendant No.1 and delivered the possession. Since then, defendant No.1 has been in possession of the property.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Sri Koramara Parasappa. Defendant No.5, Parvathamma, purchased it on 27.07.2000 for valuable consideration and defendant No.5 was put in possession of Item No.4.

¶46

Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties is the exclusive and absolute property of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 and her husband had purchased it in the year 1993. Those are the exclusive properties of defendants and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of partition in respect of those properties are concerned.

¶47

Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, particularly taking note of the admission on the part of PW-1 in cross-examination regarding the avocation of defendants and also their income, the Court also categorically noted that no

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

documents were produced before the Court to show that suit properties were purchased out of the joint family funds. It further took note of the evidence in Ex.P1 to P4, which shows that only Item Nos.1 and Item No.3 are the joint family properties, and the other properties are the defendants individual properties. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden by production of cogent and satisfactory evidence to show that item Nos.2, 4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties are also joint family properties. Hence, dismissed the suit in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5, and granted the relief only in respect of item Nos.1 and 3.

¶51

The said judgment and decree are challenged before the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff, contending that the very dismissal of the suit in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5 in coming to the conclusion that those properties are individual properties of defendants Nos.1, 4 and 5.

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

The First Appellate Court also on re-

¶55

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 are joint family properties. The Court also came to the conclusion that all these properties stand in their respective individual names as evidenced by the sale deeds. Defendant No.1 had also executed a gift deed in respect of item No.2 in the name of her son. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not proved that the said properties were also purchased out of the joint family income. Consequently, the Court confirmed the judgment in coming to the conclusion that, in the absence of any material to show that out of joint family income only, properties were purchased to confirm the same.

¶56

The counsel appearing for the appellant

¶57

vehemently contends that both courts committed an error, particularly in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5. He would further contend that the witnesses also admitted that

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

those properties were purchased during the lifetime of Doddahanumanthappa. He argues that since the mother did not have any independent income to purchase the property, the Courts ought to have granted relief in respect of at least item No.2. He submits that the fact that Item Nos.4 and 5 were also purchased in their individual names, the same was not considered, by the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantial questions of law.

¶61

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contends that admittedly the item Nos.1 and 3 properties are the joint family properties and nothing is placed on record that item Nos.1 and 3 properties were getting the income. And apart from that, PW-1 categorically admitted that nothing is placed on record to show that out of the joint family nucleus, those properties are purchased. The same has been considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

no perversity is found in the said finding. Hence, it does

¶66

not require any reconsideration.

¶67

Having heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no dispute that item Nos.1 and No.3 are the joint family properties, a fact which the defendants also not disputed and admitted the same. However, regarding item Nos.2, 4 and 5, which stand in the name of the mother and other family members, it is their specific case that these were purchased out of their own earnings.

¶68

The Trial Court has also taken note of the admission on the part of PW-1 during the course of crossexamination, wherein he categorically admitted that, defendant No.4 was working in Agriculture department and defendant No.1 was working in a Bank and also running a cloth and cycle business. PW-1 further unequivocally admitted that Kenchappa, Kariyappa and Suresh were doing good work in their respective departments and they have earned good money. Apart

¶69

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

from that, unequivocal admission was given that no documents are produced before the Court to show that suit properties are purchased out of the joint family funds. When such admission is given, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that in the absence of any material to show that other items of the properties are purchased out of the joint family funds, the question of granting any relief in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5 does not arise. The Trial Court also discussed the evidence of PW-1 in Paragraph Nos.22, 23, and 24 and took note of the documents that stand in their names.

¶72

Apart from that, the Court has also taken note of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, under which property standing in the name of a woman becomes her absolute property. The First Appellate Court has also taken note of the burden of proof that lies on the plaintiff to prove the same and the same has been discussed in Paragraph No. 40. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of some joint family property

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

capable of being the nucleus from which new property or assets could have been acquired and the same is not substantiated, and though contended that the family constitutes a joint family, nothing was placed on record to prove the same. Hence, the Court took note of the document Ex.D3 and the other documents which stand in the individual names.

¶77

Item No.4 was jointly purchased by defendant No.3 and her husband Kenchappa. DW-2 stated in her evidence that her husband was working at Ganesh Mill, and after closure of the said Mill, they received a compensation amount and from that amount only they purchased the property i.e. item No. 4. The Court has also taken note that item No.2 was purchased by the wife of the propositus, Smt. Durgamma, and item No.4 was purchased by defendant No.3, Sanna Thimmamma, and her husband.

¶78

Item No.5 was purchased by defendant No.5, Parvathamma. The plaintiff has to establish that out of

¶79

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:46322 RSA No. 2125 of 2023

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

the income of item Nos.1 and 3 only, properties are purchased and the same has not been substantiated. Hence, both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence and considering the documents and oral evidence, rightly

¶82

came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not substantiated the claim in respect of item Nos.2, 4 and 5, as nothing is placed on record to show that the property was purchased only using funds out of joint nucleus item Nos.1 and 3 in the name of other members of the family.

¶83

The counsel made an attempt to convince this Court that at the time of the purchase of the property, Doddahanumanthappa was alive, and there is an admission to that effect. However, the mere admission that Doddahanumanthappa was alive at the time of the purchase of the property cannot be a ground to conclude that only Doddahanumanthappa had purchased those items of properties. Hence, I do not find any ground to

¶84