Dismissed¶41

Manjunath @ R C Manjunath v. Smt. Renukamma @ C Renuka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025RSA/262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed at admission; Sec.100 CPC; concurrent findings upheld; ancestral joint family property partition suit; sisters/daughters coparcenary share; amendment Section 6 Hindu Succession Act; partition deed dated 27.01.2011 unsubstantiated; defendant No.2 written statement admitted plaint paras 2-3, denied 5-6; PW1 cross-examination admissions marriage hospital expenses cultivation loans not a ground to defeat plaintiffs' right; no substantive question of law framed; R.A.No.179/2022, Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Davanagere; Karnataka HC Bengaluru; H.P. Sandesh J.; 29.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Defendant No.3's specific defence that an earlier partition had already occurred was not substantiated by placing any documents. ¶31

Manjunath @ R C Manjunath Vs Smt. Renukamma @ C… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the sisters/plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the ancestral and joint family suit schedule property despite Defendant No.3's specific defence of an earlier partition vide partition deed dated 27.01.2011. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Defendant No.3's specific defence that an earlier partition had already occurred was not substantiated by placing any documents.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any material proving an earlier partition, the sisters are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property as coparceners equally with the son in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, and there is no error in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶31

Key takeaways

PW1's cross-examination admissions that appellant/defendant No.2 bore marriage expenses, hospital expenses and loans for cultivation cannot be a ground to defeat the plaintiffs' right; consequently, no substantive question of law arises on the grounds urged by the appellant.ratio¶37
There is no ground to admit the appeal or frame substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC, since both Courts concluded that relationship and nature of property are undisputed and there is no partition between the parties.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 262 of 2024, NC: 2025:KHC:43277) under Sec.100 CPC, decided at the admission stage on 29.10.2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh, against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2023 in R.A.No.179/2022 of the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, which confirmed the Trial Court's concurrent finding in favour of the plaintiffs' claim for partition and separate possession of ancestral and joint family property. Defendant No.3's plea of a prior partition vide partition deed dated 27.01.2011 was held unsubstantiated by any documents; absent proof of an earlier partition, the sisters were held entitled to a share as coparceners equally with the son under the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. PW1's cross-examination admissions that the appellant bore marriage and hospital expenses and cultivation loans were held incapable of defeating the plaintiffs' right, so no substantive question of law arose under Section 100 CPC. The second appeal was dismissed at admission, and pending I.A.s, if any, stood dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43277 RSA No. 262 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.262 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MANJUNATH @ R C MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE VILLAGE AND TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 12^TH CROSS, K.T.J. NAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SUNIL S NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. RENUKAMMA @ C RENUKA W/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT HOSADURGA ROAD, MALLAPURA, CHITRADURGA-577 527.

¶16

SMT. NAGAMMA D/O RUDRESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE-577 534

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:43277 RSA No. 262 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.179/2022 ON THE FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

¶26

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶27

learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property is an ancestral and joint family property and the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant No.3 took the specific defence that there was a partition vide partition deed dated 27.01.2011 and the present appellant is defendant No.2 and he is

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43277 RSA No. 262 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

questioning the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court wherein the parties have not disputes the relationship between them and not disputes the nature of the property that suit schedule property is an ancestral and joint family property. The claim is also made by the sisters. The sisters are also entitled for a share in the suit schedule property when there was no earlier partition. Though defendant No.3 took the specific defence that already there is a partition, the same is not substantiated by placing any documents. In the absence of any material with regard to the earlier partition, the sisters are also entitled for a share in the suit schedule property in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as they become as coparceners equally with the son. When such being the case, I do not find any error in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record while answering Point No.1 and

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43277 RSA No. 262 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming their right. The genealogical tree is admitted and relationship is also admitted and defendant No.2 also filed the written statement admitting the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint but denied the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint and contend that already there was a partition but the same is not substantiated by placing a cogent material. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law when both the Courts come to the conclusion that relationship is not in dispute and nature of the property is also not in dispute and there is no partition between the parties. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that this Court has to frame substantive question of law that the admission given by PW1 in her cross-examination wherein she has admitted that appellant/defendant No.2 taken all the responsibility and expenditures towards marriage

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43277 RSA No. 262 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

expenses and hospital expenses with respect to all the family members and loans taken for the purpose of cultivation cannot be a ground to defeat the right of the plaintiffs. Thus, question of framing of substantive question of law on the grounds which have been urged by the appellant does not arise. Hence, there is no ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

¶38