Dismissed¶54

M G Nagaraj v. Smt Sannabasamma

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2025RSA/414/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RSA dismissed at admission for want of substantive question of law; second appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings in partition suit (O.S.No.31/2013; R.A.No.120/2017, Davanagere); unchallenged 1975 partition deed Ex.D1 dated 04.02.1975; khatha mutation Ex.D2/Ex.D3; Section 110 Limitation Act; objection that limitation issue was not framed rejected; recitals of Ex.P5; PW1 admissions in cross-examination; marriage prior to 1956; defendant Nos.1 to 6 entitled to shares.

What did the court decide?

There is no substantive question of law to admit the appeal; the substantive questions of law framed by the appellants' counsel do not require consideration in the second appeal. ¶54

M G Nagaraj Vs Smt Sannabasamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any substantive question of law to admit the second appeal, given the substantive questions of law framed by the appellants' counsel. +2 more

¶54

Court's answer

There is no substantive question of law to admit the appeal; the substantive questions of law framed by the appellants' counsel do not require consideration in the second appeal.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The appellants' contention that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record in a proper perspective (including dismissal of the suit without considering the recitals of Ex.P5 and the material on limitation) cannot be accepted.

¶50

Key takeaways

Non-framing of an issue with regard to limitation cannot be a ground to consider the matter in a second appeal, since both the question of fact and law were considered by both the Courts in a proper perspective.ratio¶54
There is a concurrent finding of the Courts below when the suit was filed for the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties, which forms the basis for refusing admission of the second appeal.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.), Oral Judgment dated 03.06.2025 in Regular Second Appeal No.414 of 2022 (PAR) filed under Section 100 of CPC, dismissed at the admission stage. The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2021 in R.A.No.120/2017 of the First Appellate Court (II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere) and the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 in O.S.No.31/2013 of the Trial Court — a suit for partition of suit schedule properties. Both Courts below had reached concurrent findings: a partition deed of the year 1975 (Ex.D1, dated 04.02.1975) existed and was never challenged; the khatha stood mutated (Ex.D2, Ex.D3) in the names of Doddabasamma and Sannabasamma; the suit was filed in 2013 after a lapse of more than 30 years; the Trial Court discussed PW1's cross-examination admissions and limitation under Section 110 of Limitation Act; and, the marriage of Sannabasamma with Chidanandappa having taken place prior to 1956, defendant Nos.1 to 6 were held entitled to their shares, the plaintiffs not being able to claim the suit schedule properties remained available for partition. Holding of this Court: there is no substantive question of law to admit the appeal; the appellants' contention of improper consideration of material (including recitals of Ex.P5 and limitation) cannot be accepted; and non-framing of a limitation issue is not a ground to consider the matter in a second appeal where both question of fact and law were considered by both Courts in a proper perspective. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.414 OF 2022 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M G NAGARAJ S/O M G SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶10

M G SRINIVASA S/O M G SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M G RAVIKUMAR S/O M G SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶13

M G SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O M G CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANTOSH R NELKUDURI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. SANNABASAMMA D/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA, W/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6

¶20

JAYAPPA, S/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, MOTHER – SMT. SANNABSAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶21

SMT. VISHALA W/O MAHESHWARAPPA, D/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, MOTHER – SMT. SANNABSAMMA, R/O CHIKKA THOGALERE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶22

SMT. SHILPA D/O M G THIMMESHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O BELAVANUR VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶23

SMT. REKHA W/O M G SHRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 5. NAVEEN S/O M G SHRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶24

SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O AGASANAKATTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶28

M V VENKATESH S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O MADALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶29

M V VISHWANATH S/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O VISHWABANDHU COMMUNICATION, ASHOKA ROAD, JAYADEVA CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE – 577 001

¶30

SMT. S N GEETHA W/O GANGADHARAPPA K M, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001

¶31

SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O NEAR HAGEDIBBA CIRCLE, DAVANGERE – 577 001

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.120/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2021 passed in R.A.No.120/2017 by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.31/2013 by the Trial Court.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant appearing for the appellants.

¶42

This matter is listed for admission. There is a

¶43

concurrent finding when the suit was filed for the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly, document of Ex.D1 comes to the conclusion that there was a partition deed of the year 1975 and the same was not challenged and suit was also filed for the relief of partition in the year 2013 that is after the lapse of more than 30 years and the Trial Court also discussed in detail the admission on the part of PW1 in the cross-examination which was also extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court in paragraph 20 onwards and detailed order was passed considering the arguments in paragraph 21 of its judgment and also taken note of the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

relationship between the parties and the chief evidence as well as the admission given by PW1 also extracted in page No.31 of its judgment so also discussed in detail regarding limitation invoking Section 110 of Limitation Act and also a detailed discussion was made in paragraph 22. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record on both question of facts and question of law, in detail discussed the facts in paragraphs 28 to 31 and documentary evidence of Ex.D1 also taken note of since defendant Nos.1 to 6 got divided the family properties which were fallen under Ex.D1 and also taken note of the fact that as per the partition deed, the khatha was mutated in the name of Doddabasamma and Sannabasamma vide Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 and subsequent to the document of partition, there was a division in the family of defendant Nos.1 to 6 and same was appreciated by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 32. In paragraph 35 also taken note of the fact that the plaintiffs have not challenged the partition deed dated 04.02.1975 so far, so the document at Ex.D1 came into existence prior to 30 years from the date of filing of the suit and also taken note of possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as admitted by

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

PW1 in the cross-examination and same is also discussed in paragraph 36 and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the marriage of Sannabasamma with Chidanandappa had taken place prior to 1956 and hence, defendant Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for their share in the suit schedule properties. Moreover, Chidanandappa himself has settled the properties under registered partition deed since the plaintiffs have not questioned the partition deed, they cannot claim that the suit schedule properties are available for partition and detailed reasoning was given by the First Appellate Court.

¶50

Once the First Appellate Court also discussed both question of fact and question of law, the very contention of the appellants’ counsel that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record in a proper perspective and dismissal of the suit without considering the recitals of Ex.P5 and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court fail to consider the material on record with regard to the limitation is concerned cannot be accepted. The counsel would contend that the issue was not framed with regard to the limitation is concerned and the same

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

cannot be a ground to consider the matter in a second appeal when both the question of fact and law was considered by both the Courts in a proper perspective. Hence, the substantive questions of law framed by the appellants’ counsel do not requires consideration in the second appeal and there is no any substantive question of law to admit the appeal. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶56

M G Nagaraj v. Smt Sannabasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M G Nagaraj v. Smt Sannabasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muddagangamma Vs Smt. Anusuyamma

Sri K R Narasimhamurthy Vs Sri K R Thimmaiah

Smt. Nalini Vs Smt. Anitha

Shivalingaswamy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Latha Vs Smt Thayamma

Sri D.S.Raghavendra Vs Syed Abdul Jaleel