Dismissed¶55

Sri. G. N. Nagarajaiah v. Sri. Bheemaiah

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025RSA/457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 457 of 2024 (DEC/INJ); Justice H.P. Sandesh; decided 12.11.2025; partition deed Ex.P17; O.S.No.17/2010; R.A.No.5034/2018; O.S.No.1/2000; F.D.P.No.1/2004; decree not binding on persons not made parties; declaration of ownership and permanent injunction; concurrent findings; no perversity; no substantial question of law; Order 41 Rule 31 CPC; Section 100 CPC; second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Both courts below rightly concluded that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004 do not bind the plaintiffs, since they were not made parties to those proceedings and the suit properties had already been allotted to them under the earlier partition (Ex.P17). ¶47

Sri. G. N. Nagarajaiah Vs Sri. Bheemaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004 are binding on the plaintiffs, who claim under an earlier partition (Ex.P17) and were not made parties to those proceedings. +2 more

¶33

Court's answer

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The First Appellate Court duly exercised its power under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by re-appreciating the evidence; there is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, and therefore no ground to admit the second appeal or frame a substantial question of law.

¶47

Key takeaways

The question of law raised by the appellants was also considered by both the courts below, which noted that the property was already allotted to the plaintiffs in the earlier partition and that they were not made parties when the decree in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004 was obtained.ratio¶51
On the pleaded family facts, there was no dispute as to the relationship between the parties: defendant No.3 married two women, there was a partition under Ex.P17 allotting the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs, and the defendants did not dispute that a decree was obtained in the very same properties in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004 without impleading the plaintiffs; on these findings the appellants' contention regarding the plaintiffs' status fails with the dismissal of the appeal.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) against concurrent findings — Non-binding nature of decree on non-parties. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed the suit schedule properties under an earlier partition (Ex.P17) and were not made parties when a decree was obtained in the very same properties in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004. The Trial Court (O.S.No.17/2010, Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, decree dated 16.11.2018) decreed the suit, declared the plaintiffs owners and granted permanent injunction, holding those decrees not binding on the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court (R.A.No.5034/2018, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru sitting at Madhugiri, judgment and decree dated 20.12.2023) re-assessed the oral and documentary evidence and confirmed. The High Court held there was no perversity in either finding, that the First Appellate Court had exercised its power under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, that the question of law was considered by both courts below, and that no substantial question of law arose; the second appeal was dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G.N. NAGARAJAIAH S/O LATE NARASEEYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶9

SRI G.N. HANUMANTHAYAPPA S/O LATE NARASEEYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARASEEYAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶11

APPELLANTS No.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT T.GOLLA HALLI KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK-572 129.

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. MUDDAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT: GARAGADODDI KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK-572 129.

¶14

SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT: THOVINAKERE C.N. DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK-572 138.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PATTABI C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. BHEEMAIAH S/O LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶21

SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT T. GOLLA HALLI KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK-572 129.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5034/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.17/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that they and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons and defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the daughters of defendant No.3 and also contend that there was partition in terms of Ex.P17 and some of the suit schedule properties which were allotted in terms of Ex.P17 were also got included in the original suit in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004. Hence, the judgment and decree passed in those proceedings are not binding on them.

¶34

The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.25 taken note of the properties which were allotted in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.P17 and also inclusion of those properties in the said suit and FDP proceedings. Hence, comes to the conclusion that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004 are not binding on the plaintiffs by answering issue No.3 as ‘affirmative’ and also comes to the conclusion that, if judgment and decree is not set aside and their rights

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

which have been provided in terms of Ex.P7 will be affected. Hence, decreed the suit and declared that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties by holding that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P. No.1/2004 are not binding on them and also granted permanent injunction.

¶39

The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5034/2018 and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in keeping the grounds which have been urged, particularly considering that they are the members of the joint family and that there was a judgment and decree and whether the same binds them, discussed in detail and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has taken note of the contents of document Ex.P17 and accepted Ex.P17-partition deed and held that plaintiffs have partitioned the plaint schedule properties under Ex.P17 and considering the material available on record held that plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration, since the very case of the plaintiffs is that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and those properties are allotted in their

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

favour in terms of Ex.P17 and they have not been made as parties while getting the decree in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P. No.1/2004. When such finding is given by the Trial Court and the same does not require any interference and confirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

¶43

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that both the Courts committed an error and failed to take note of the fact that only portion of the properties in survey number is the subject matter of the said suit and failed to take note of Ex.P17 in a proper perspective and also the extent of land allotted in their favour. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law. It is also contended that this Court has to take note of the fact that Courts below are not right in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, admittedly who are illegitimate children in respect of their ancestral properties.

¶44

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the reasoning of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Trial Court taken note of the factual aspects of the case and no dispute with regard to the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

relationship between the parties. The defendant No.3 married two women and also there were children and there was partition and in terms of partition Ex.P17, suit schedule properties are allotted in favour of the plaintiffs and also taken note of the fact that decree was obtained in respect of the very same properties in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004, the defendants also not dispute the same. The plaintiffs are not parties in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004. When such being the case, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. as well as in F.D.P. proceedings not binds on the plaintiffs, since they were not made as parties and the said properties have been allotted in favour of the plaintiffs in the earlier partition. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also considered the same and re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record and when the First Appellate Court also exercised its power under Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC and re-appreciated the evidence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial question of law and there is no perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court. With regard to question of law also,

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:45987 RSA No. 457 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

both the Courts taken note of the fact that property was already allotted in favour of the plaintiffs in the earlier partition and they were not made as parties while getting the decree in O.S.No.1/2000 and F.D.P.No.1/2004. Hence, rightly comes to the conclusion that those two proceedings are not binding on the plaintiffs and question of law is also considered by both the Courts.

¶52