Dismissed¶63

D Ramachandrappa v. Yashodamma

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025RSA/473/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; undivided Hindu joint family; ancestral property; bonafide purchaser; registered sale deed 22.03.2006; statutory notice to Tahsildar; formal party; mutation entries Ex.P.9, P.10, P.11; MR No.3/2000-01; Sy.No.110/1, 110/6, 202, 251, 50; earlier partition 10.01.1982; self-acquired property; proof of possession; new defence in second appeal; substantial question of law; Section 100 CPC; concurrent findings; second appeal dismissed; Bengaluru Rural; Devanahalli; Yashodamma v. D. Ramachandrappa.

What did the court decide?

The objection that statutory notice should have been issued to the Tahsildar before filing the suit cannot be accepted, since no relief was sought against him and he was made only a formal party; the suit is solely for partition and separate possession. ¶43

D Ramachandrappa Vs Yashodamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether a statutory notice to the Tahsildar (defendant No.3) ought to have been issued before filing the partition suit. +3 more

¶43

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The mutation entries under Exs.P.9 to P.11 marked before the Trial Court were entered in the absence of any documentary proof evidencing a partition between defendant No.1's father and his brothers; accordingly the contention that no such partition took place cannot be accepted.

¶50

Key takeaways

A different defence cannot be raised for the first time in the second appeal; consequently there is no ground to admit the appeal and frame a substantial question of law on the alleged non-partition between the father and his brothers.ratio¶54
The contention that partition cannot be granted unless the plaintiff proves possession over the suit schedule properties cannot be accepted.ratio¶55
The suit was filed in 2006 subsequent to the amendment and no material was placed before the Court showing a partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1; hence no error was committed by the Trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.; 14.10.2025) dismissed Regular Second Appeal No.473 of 2024 (Par) under Section 100 CPC, at the admission stage and without framing any substantial question of law, against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (O.S.No.1590/2006, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli — suit dismissed as to 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, half share each decreed to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in 'C' to 'F' schedule properties) and the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.15035/2022, V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, dated 01.12.2023). Held: (i) no statutory notice to the Tahsildar (defendant No.3) was required, as no relief was sought against him and he was joined only as a formal party; (ii) mutation entries Exs.P.9 to P.11 (lands Sy.Nos.110/1 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas in MR No.3/2000-01, 110/6, 202, 251 and 50, mutated in defendant No.1's favour in 2000-01 after his father's death) were entered without any documentary proof of partition between his father and the father's brothers, defeating the plea of an un-partitioned wider family whose members had to be impleaded; (iii) a different defence cannot be urged for the first time in a second appeal; and (iv) proof of possession by the plaintiff is not a prerequisite for partition, the suit having been filed in 2006 subsequent to the amendment.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.473 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE GARALLI DODDA MUNIYAPPA, R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562165.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

YASHODAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O MARIYAPPA, R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

¶15

SUBRAMANI,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O SUBBARAJU, R/AT NO.31, 1^ST MAIN, 2 RA NO.15035 BHUBAN LAYOUT, VENKATALA, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15035/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1590/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.

¶28

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

¶29

The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of partition on the ground that herself and defendant No.1 constitute undivided Hindu joint family and the suit schedule properties

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

are their joint family ancestral properties. It is contended that the sale deed dated 22.03.2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule properties is not binding upon her and so also defendant No.2 is causing interference as alleged in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint. The defendant No.2 took the contention that the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties are the self-acquired properties of one Narayanappa S/o late Munishamappa of Budigere Village. The defendant No.2 took the specific defence that he is a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties from defendant No.1 and Narayanappa S/o late Munishamappa under the registered sale deed dated 22.03.2006 and since then he is in possession of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court framed the additional issues regarding defence of earlier partition dated 10.01.1982, whether defendant No.1 proves that ‘F’ schedule property originally belongs to his father, whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit schedule properties are his self-acquired properties and whether defendant No.2 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and granted relief in respect of ‘C’ to ‘F’ schedule properties. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is having half share in respect of suit ‘C’ to ‘F’ schedule properties and defendant No.1 is having half share in respect of suit ‘C’ to ‘F’ schedule properties.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15035/2022. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and formulated the point whether the plaintiff proves that herself and defendant No.1 are members of joint family and whether the Trial Court failed to discuss about the documents and admissions given by P.W.1 and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative that both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the members of the joint family and comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court does not require any interference.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the

¶42

present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶43

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the second appeal is that when the suit is filed for the relief of partition and when the Tahsildar is made as defendant No.3, before filing the suit ought to have issued statutory notice. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that no relief is sought against the Tahsildar and Tahsildar was made only a former party. The Court has to take note of that the suit is only for the relief of partition and separate possession. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no partition between the father and his brothers in respect of the suit schedule properties and without making the brothers of the plaintiff’s father as parties to the proceedings, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession and hence this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶45

caveator/respondent No.1 brought to the notice of this Court

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

that the Trial Court while answering additional issue Nos.1 to 3, taken note of that the document of Ex.P.9 in respect of Sy.No.110/1 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas was mutated in favour of defendant No.1 in MR No.3/2000-01 and some of the suit schedule properties were changed to his name by way of inheritance, but he did not have the documents to show that there was a partition between his father and his father’s brothers and answered additional issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative.

¶50

Having considered the documents of Exs.P.9 to 11, which have been marked before the Trial Court, the mutations are entered in the absence of any documentary proof evidencing the partition. The Trial Court taking note of the documentary evidence of Exs.P.9 to 11, comes to the conclusion that already there was a partition and subsequent to the death of his father, defendant No.1 got transferred the property in his favour in terms of Exs.P.9 to 11. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and there cannot be a different defence in the second appeal for the first time and

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

hence I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.

¶55

The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff without proving the possession over the suit schedule properties, there cannot be any partition and the said contention cannot be accepted. The suit is filed in the year 2006 subsequent to the amendment and no material is placed before the Court that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court reappreciated the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.25 taken note of that Ex.P.9 mutation order discloses that after the death of his father, defendant No.1 got mutated the land bearing Sy.No.110/6 and 110/1 in his name in the year 2000-01. Ex.P.10 mutation order discloses that after the death of his father, defendant No.1 got mutated the land bearing Sy.No.202 and 251 in his name in the year 2000-01. Ex.P.11 mutation order discloses that after the death of his father, defendant No.1 got mutated the land bearing Sy.No.50 in his name in the year 2000-01 along with his cousin Muralidhara.

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:40635 RSA No. 473 of 2024

¶57

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

When such material is considered by the First Appellate Court, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and hence no merit to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶60