Smt. M. Hemavathi Vs Smt. Chikkamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. M. Hemavathi Vs Smt. Chikkamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal should be admitted and a substantial question of law framed against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. +1 more

Court's answer

No ground is made out to admit the second appeal or to frame a substantial question of law.

Ratio / Principle

Although counsel for the appellants pleaded a sale deed of the year 2005, the document produced and proved is Ex.P9, the sale deed dated 02.06.2004; the appellants did not produce any such 2005 sale deed before the First Appellate Court or this Court, and the findings of both courts below relate only to Ex.P9 dated 02.06.2004.

Key takeaways

On the documentary evidence placed before the courts, as on the date of the sale under Ex.P9 the plaintiffs were not co-parceners, and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court therefore rightly dismissed the case of the plaintiffs.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal dismissed at the admission stage — High Court of Karnataka, RSA No. 607 of 2024 (PAR/POS) (NC: 2025:KHC:51938), H.P. Sandesh J., 09.12.2025. Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2022 in R.A.No.73/2021 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District), which confirmed the Trial Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs (daughters of Late Marappa) pleaded a sale deed dated 02.06.2005 but produced Ex.P9, a sale deed dated 02.06.2004; both courts below found that as on the date of the Ex.P9 sale the plaintiffs were not co-parceners (the deed predating the Central Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act), that neither the plaintiffs nor any member of Marappa's family had concern with the 31 guntas in Survey No.4/8 of Narayanappa, and that the plaintiffs had claimed no relief with respect to the 2004 sale deed. The appellants did not produce any 2005 sale deed before the First Appellate Court or the High Court. Held: no ground existed to admit the appeal or frame a substantial question of law; the second appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications stood dismissed as not surviving.

NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.607 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SMT. M. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

SMT. M GANGAMMA D/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT AROKYATANAHALLI VILLAGE MAKALI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562162

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. G CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

SRI M RAJASHEKHAR S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI M RAMESH S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O AROKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE MAKALI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562162

SRI NANJUNDE GOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.17/1, 1^ST MAIN 11^TH CROSS, ‘K’ BLOCK DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560010

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

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

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

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

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that the sale deed was made on 02.06.2005. But the plaintiffs while examining before the Trial Court produced the sale deed at Ex.P9 and the same is dated 02.06.2004. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration while answering the issues involved between the parties in paragraphs 12 and 13 and also taken note of the fact that the sale deed is prior to the Central Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and finding is given that they are not the co-parceners at the time of sale deed in terms of Ex.P9,

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024

HC-KAR

thus, question of granting any such relief does not arise.

The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph 23, taken note of the fact that as on the date of filing of the suit, neither the plaintiffs nor any member of the family of Marappa are concerned to 31 guntas land in Survey No.4/8 of Narayanappa, which is subject matter of the sale deed dated 02.06.2004 marked at Ex.P9. Irrespective of the evidence and pleadings of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs have not claimed any type of relief with respect to the sale deed dated 02.06.2004 marked at Ex.P9 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that pleading was made particularly with regard to the sale deed dated 02.06.2005, but mistakenly produced the sale deed of 02.06.2004 as Ex.P9.

NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024

5 -

HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the counsel for the appellants pleaded in respect of sale deed of the year 2005, but when the evidence is adduced before the Court and produced the document of sale deed of the year 2004, that is Ex.P9 and both Trial Court and First Appellate Court taken note of the material placed before the Court particularly, the documentary evidence which is placed before the Court which shows that as on the date of the sale made in terms of Ex.P9, the plaintiffs are not the co-parceners and hence, rightly both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the case of the plaintiffs. Even though, the counsel appearing for the appellants made such submission before this Court, not produced any such sale deed before the First Appellate Court as well as this Court and finding of both the Courts is only in respect of Ex.P9 dated 02.06.2004. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law.

NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024

6 -

HC-KAR

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,

does not survive for consideration and the same stands

dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN