Sri.Mahadevanayaka Vs Smt.Laxmi@ Lakshmamma

SMT.LAXMI@ LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O LATE SIDDANAYAKA W/O DEVARAJANAYAKA R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE & HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.No.113/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE MYSURU AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45823 RSA No. 427 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding

¶22

of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

¶23

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶24

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that a sister i.e., the plaintiff had filed a suit against her brother i.e., the defendant claiming that the suit schedule properties are belonged to the family and ‘A' schedule property was granted to her father in the year 1991 and after the demise of her father in the year 1997, the defendant and her mother Sanamma were cultivating the said land. Since, Sanamma was the head of the family, the grant certificate was issued in favour of her mother Sanamma. Whereas, the marriage of the plaintiff took place in the year 1998 and she was given sufficient gold ornaments and cash and that is the defence of the defendant in the written statement. But, the plaintiff contend that ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties are the joint family properties and the contention of the defendant that he

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:45823 RSA No. 427 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

has purchased ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties under the sale deed dated 15.12.2016.

¶29

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 as affirmative holding that though the defendant contend that plaintiff has already received the amount in respect of her share in ‘A’ schedule property and ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are his self-acquired properties, but nothing is placed on record to prove Issue Nos.4 and 5 and hence, the Trial Court not accepted the contention of the defendant. The Trial Court also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of the witness wherein he categorically admitted that he was doing cattle business and earning the money and out of that earnings, the property was purchased but, to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record. Hence, the Trial Court granted the relief of half share in favour of the plaintiff in respect of ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:45823 RSA No. 427 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record comes to the conclusion that appellant has not substantiated his case in order to come to a conclusion that ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are self-acquired properties. The First Appellate Court also extracted the admission on the part of DW1 wherein he admitted that his source of income is agriculture, thus, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, this second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶34

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in this second appeal is that dispute is only in respect of ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and no dispute in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. Even though the defence was taken that the plaintiff rescinded her claim in respect of ‘A’ schedule property, the same is not a ground in this second appeal. But only ground in the second appeal is that ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the appellant

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:45823 RSA No. 427 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

since out of his own earnings, the said properties were purchased by him, thus, the respondent is not entitled to claim any share in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantive question of law.

¶39

Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also on

¶40

perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that property was granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff and defendant i.e., ‘A’ schedule property. Though it is contended by the appellant that ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are his selfacquired properties which was purchased out of his earnings, not produced any material to show that he was having his independent income other than the agriculture and there is a admission on the part of DW1 that agriculture is his source of income. The counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant was doing business of cattle and earning money but, in order to substantiate the same, nothing was produced. To prove that it is a self-acquired properties, there must be a material before the Court and without any such material, the question of coming to the conclusion that there is a perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:45823 RSA No. 427 of 2025

¶42