Dismissed¶53

Sri M S Byranna v. Smt Gowramma

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025RSA/653/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:49421; Karnataka HC, Bengaluru; H.P. Sandesh J.; RSA No. 653 of 2025 (PAR) under S.100 CPC dismissed; no substantial question of law; concurrent findings upheld; ancestral and joint family property; plaintiff granted 1/3rd share; suit of 2020 after amendment to Section 6(a) Hindu Succession Act; suit not barred by limitation where parties in joint possession; plea of partition prior to 20.12.2004 unsubstantiated; D.W.1 admission on nature of properties; marriage and improvement expenditure contentions unsupported; Tumakuru/Madhugiri courts.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the regular second appeal is dismissed, leaving intact the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting the plaintiff a 1/3rd share. ¶53

Sri M S Byranna Vs Smt Gowramma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the regular second appeal is dismissed, leaving intact the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting the plaintiff a 1/3rd share.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal discloses any ground/substantial question of law warranting its admission. +3 more

¶49

Court's answer

No ground is made out to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law; the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the nature of the properties and the plaintiff's right stand, and the appeal is dismissed.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Despite the defence taken in the written statement, there is an admission by D.W.1 in cross-examination regarding the ancestral/joint family nature of the suit schedule properties, noted in paragraph No.9 of the Trial Court's judgment.

¶45

Key takeaways

The defence that defendant No.1 invested money for improvement of the suit schedule properties fails for want of any details.ratio¶45
As there was no partition as on the date of filing of the suit, and considering the nature of the properties, the contentions regarding marriage expenses and expenditure on the properties furnished no ground to admit the appeal.ratio¶49
The right conferred on the plaintiff is sustained because the suit was filed in the year 2020, subsequent to the amendment to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.), by oral judgment dated 27.11.2025, dismissed Regular Second Appeal No.653 of 2025 (PAR) filed under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru sitting at Madhugiri (R.A.No.5025/2023, dated 13.12.2024) and the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri (O.S.No.147/2020, dated 11.08.2023), whereby the plaintiff was granted a 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties found to be ancestral and joint family properties. The Court noted D.W.1's cross-examination admission as to the ancestral nature of the properties, the absence of any particulars of the defendant's alleged investment for improvement, the failure to substantiate the pleaded partition prior to 20.12.2004 or any division in the family, and that the suit filed in 2020 followed the amendment to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. Finding no substantial question of law, the appeal was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49421 RSA No. 653 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.653 OF 2025 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. M.S. BYRANNA S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH @ SHIVAIAH @ SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MUDDAMALLANAHALLI VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ SHIVAIAH @ SHIVAPPA Digitally signed W/O HONNAPPA by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Location: HIGH COURT OF R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE KARNATAKA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK - 572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶15

MR. MARUTHI S/O. MR. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 127 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:49421 RSA No. 653 of 2025

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MRS. SHWETHA

¶20

W/O. MR. BALAKRISHNA D/O. MR. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572120 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5025/2023 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.147/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶27

learned counsel for the appellant.

¶28

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

¶29

The very case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while claiming 1/3^rd share over the suit schedule properties is

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:49421 RSA No. 653 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. Hence, she is entitled for a share.

¶34

The defendant No.1 took the contention that suit is barred by limitation and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court and answered issue number No.1 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. In paragraph No.9, while discussing the evidence of D.W.1, extracted the admission of D.W.1 that he has admitted that suit schedule properties are his ancestral and joint family properties and only defence which was taken is that he performed the marriage by spending money and the same is also admitted by P.W.1 that defendant No.1 himself performed the marriage of both sisters, who are twins, but their contention is that father had kept the money for performing their marriage. Having taken note of the fact that there was no partition between the members of the joint family, answered issue No.1 as ‘affirmative’ and issue No.2 as ‘negative’, in coming to the conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation and when the parties are in joint possession and there is an

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:49421 RSA No. 653 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

existence of joint family status, the question of limitation does not arise and granted the relief of 1/3^rd share.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5025/2023. The First Appellate Court also having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 in paragraph No.11, taken note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties and also taken note of nature of the properties and also there was no division among the family members and the contention of the appellant that he himself performed the marriage by availing loan and considering Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties, since there is no division. To prove the fact that there was a division in the family also, nothing is placed on record. Though it is contended that there was partition between him and his father prior to 20.12.2004, the same is not substantiated. Hence, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶40

The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:49421 RSA No. 653 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

error in granting the relief of partition. The counsel would vehemently contend that appellant had spent huge money for performing the marriage of the plaintiff and also spent an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for maintaining the suit schedule properties and the same is not taken note of by both the Courts.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also reasoning of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, no dispute with regard to nature of the properties is concerned. The counsel would vehemently contend that the same was disputed while filing the written statement. But, there is an admission on the part of D.W.1 in the crossexamination regarding nature of the properties is concerned and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.9 of the judgment of the Trial Court. Though defence was taken that defendant No.1 invested money for improvement of the suit schedule properties, but no details are given. With regard to the contention that defendant No.1 himself performed the marriage of two sisters, P.W.1 also admitted that he performed the marriage of sisters, but categorically contend that father

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:49421 RSA No. 653 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

had kept the money. But, in order to substantiate the same also, no documents are placed and when there was no partition as on the date of filing of the suit and also considering the nature of the properties, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. Both the Courts have taken note of nature of the properties and also the right conferred on the plaintiff, since suit is filed in the year 2020, subsequent to amendment to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶50