Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Doddavenkatappa Vs Chikkavenkatappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Doddavenkatappa Vs ChikkavenkatappaDoddavenkatappa v. Chikkavenkatappa

Dismissed¶16

Doddavenkatappa v. Chikkavenkatappa

Partition – Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2025RSA/701/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:46012; HC-KAR; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; RSA No. 701 of 2010 (PAR) decided 10.11.2025 by Umesh M Adiga, J.; partition and separate possession suit OS No.311/1996 (Prl. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. & JMFC, Doddaballapur), decree 07.12.2006 granting 1/3rd share; first appeal RA No.96/2006 (Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur) partly allowed on 16.11.2009 awarding 1/6th share to each sharer; second appeal under S.100 CPC dismissed – no substantial question of law; all plaint properties held joint family properties; pleas of self-acquired Survey Nos.23/1, 23/2, Land Tribunal grant of Survey No.16, and PW.1 cross-examination admission on Survey No.35/1 rejected for want of pleadings and issues; evidence without pleadings of no use; non-joinder of necessary parties; parties Doddavenkatappa (by LRs) v. Chikkavenkatappa (by LRs), Gangappa (by LRs), Patalakka @ Venkatamma (by LRs).

What did the court decide?

There are no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. ¶15

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether Survey Nos.23/1 and 23/2 were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, and whether Survey No.16 (measuring 2 acres 24 guntas), granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, was wrongly treated by the Courts below as joint family property. +2 more

Court's answer

Both the Courts below, on the basis of sufficient material, rightly held that all the properties mentioned in the plaint are joint family properties.

Ratio / Principle

There are no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

Key takeaways

It is a settled principle of law that a person who has not pleaded certain facts in the written statement cannot cross-examine a witness on those facts.ratio¶14
Without pleadings, any amount of evidence led by the parties is of no use.ratio¶14
No substantial questions of law arise in this case to admit the appeal.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition – Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC – concurrent findings of the Trial Court (OS No.311/1996, decree dated 07.12.2006, 1/3rd share to plaintiff) and the First Appellate Court (RA No.96/2006, decree dated 16.11.2009, 1/6th share to each sharer) that all plaint schedule properties are joint family properties – appellant's contentions that Survey Nos.23/1 and 23/2 were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, that Survey No.16 was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, and that an admission in the cross-examination of PW.1 regarding Survey No.35/1 was not considered – rejected: no pleadings in the written statement and no issue framed thereon; settled that a person who has not pleaded facts cannot cross-examine a witness on those facts and that evidence led without pleadings is of no use – no substantial questions of law – appeal dismissed.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2010 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

DODDAVENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

A.1.(a) SMT. YELAMMA, W/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,

A.1.(b) SRI.ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

A.1.(c) SRI.D.YELAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

A.1.(d) SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

A.1.(e) SRI.D.MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

A.1.(f) SMT.GANGAMMA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

A.1.(g) SRI.D.NAGARAJA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT OBADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.V.KESHAVA RAO MOHITHE., ADVOCATE; V/O DATED 01.08.2025 A1(B TO G) ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF A1(A))

AND:

CHIKKAVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

a. SMT.ANJANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, R/O BASAVANA HALLIT, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,

b. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAVANKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

c. YELLAKKA, D/O LATE CHIKKAVENAKATAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR.

c(a) YELLAPPA, S/O GURUMUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

c(b) NAGARAJA, S/O YELLAKKA,

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

c(d) GANGAPPA,

S/O YELLAKKA & GURUMUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

d. SRI.C HANUMANTAHPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

(B) TO (D) ARE RESIDENTS OF OBADENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.

GANGAPPA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

2(a) SMT.YALLAMMA,

W/O LATE GANGAPPA, RESIDENT OF OBADENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203.

PATALAKKA @ VENKATAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

SRI.VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE PATALAKKA AND KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KAMAREDDY HALLI, POSHETTAHALLI POST, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.G B MANJUNATHA ., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & B), R1(C)(A TO C) AND R1 (D); SRI.S.A.KHADRI., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A); R3(A) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2009 PASSED IN RA.NO.96/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, DODDABALLAPUR. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.12.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.311/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPUR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The Plaintiffs i.e., respondents No.1 (a to d) filed a suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.311 /1996 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) and JMFC, Doddaballapur. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.1 and 3

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

preferred an RA.No.96/2006 before Fast Track Court Doddaballapur. The said appeal was allowed in part vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit awarding 1/6^th share to each sharers. The same is challenged in the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as legal representatives of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants, who are children and grandchildren of late Doddahanumanthappa. The undisputed genealogy of the family is produced at Ex.D.2.

NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

6 -

HC-KAR

The defendants in their written statement,

denied the averments stated in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff and defendants constitute joint family?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are their joint family properties?

3. Whether the plaintiff prove that he is entitle for

1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for suit reliefs?

6. What order or decree?"

6. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the

parties to the proceedings. The plaintiffs examined three

witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 10 documents, as

per Exs.P-1 to P-10. The defendants examined three

witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and marked Exs.D-1 to D-35.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of

learned counsel appearing for both parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and decreed the suit by awarding 1/3^rd share to the plaintiff-Chikkavenkatappa.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Trial Court, defendant Nos.1 and 3 preferred an appeal before the Fast Tract Court, Doddaballapur, in RA No.96/2006.

The First Appellate Court after hearing both the

parties, framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and was entitled share in the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the judgement and decree of the Trial Court calls for interference?

4. What order?"

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

The First Appellate Court on appreciating the materials available on record, answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and confirmed the Trial Court judgment and modified the relief.

In the impugned judgment passed in RA No.96/2006, the First Appellate Court found that all the three daughters of late Doddahanumanthappa were not parties before the Trial Court and that only one daughter was made as a party in the First Appellate Court. In the absence of parties, awarded equal shares to both the sons and daughters of the Doddahanumanthappa.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that property bearing Survey No.23/1 and 23/2 were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. They were not joint family properties. Similarly, Survey No.16, measuring 2 acres 24 guntas was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Trial

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

Court as well as First Appellate Court have not considered

the said fact and considered them as a joint family properties. It is further contended that Survey No.35/1 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas of Obadenahalli, is a joint family property. In the cross-examination of PW.1, this fact was admitted, but the Courts below did not consider the same and allowed the shares in the said property in favour of legal representatives of Doddahanumanthappa. The said findings are challenged in the present appeal.

The Trial Court while discussing the issue No.1, considered the tenanted land to which occupancy rights were granted in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. In paragraph No.13 of the Trial Court judgment, it also considered property bearing Survey No.35/1 and two other house properties. The Trial Court in its judgment has observed that there was no pleadings regarding not including some of the properties referred to in the crossexamination as a joint family properties and without pleadings and issues, it cannot proceed with the matter

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

and hold that it was a joint family property or self acquired property of the plaintiff.

The First Appellate Court also reconsidered the matter and rejected the contentions of the appellant. On the basis of the absence of pleadings and materials available on record, both the Courts below, appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence, held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and in the absence of the pleadings, the same property alleged to be belonging to the joint family, cannot be considered. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on the pleadings and evidence available on record. It is a settled principle of law that a person who has not pleaded in respect of the certain facts in the written statement cannot cross-examine the witness on that point. In the present case, no issue was framed in that regard. It is also settled principle of law that without pleadings, any amount of evidence is led by the parties are not of any use.

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010

HC-KAR

In these circumstances, there are no reasons to

interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Both the Courts below, on the basis of sufficient material, have rightly held that all the properties mentioned in the plaint are joint family properties. In view of the said reasons, there are no substantial questions of law in this

case to admit the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Registry is directed to send back the records along

with a copy of this judgment to the Courts below.

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether Survey Nos.23/1 and 23/2 were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, and whether Survey No.16 (measuring 2 acres 24 guntas), granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, was wrongly treated by the Courts below as joint family property.medium confidence¶12
The court held
Both the Courts below, on the basis of sufficient material, rightly held that all the properties mentioned in the plaint are joint family properties.ratio¶15
2.
Whether the Courts below failed to consider, in respect of Survey No.35/1 (measuring 1 acre 3 guntas of Obadenahalli), the admission made in the cross-examination of PW.1 that it is a joint family property.medium confidence¶12
3.
Whether the appeal discloses any substantial question of law to warrant its admission and interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.¶15
The court held
No substantial questions of law arise in this case to admit the appeal.ratio¶15

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 100¶47

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009 in RA.No.96/2006 by which the First Appellate Court partly allowed the defendants' appeal, modified the trial court judgment and decree dated 7.12.2006 in OS.No.311/1996, and decreed the suit awarding 1/6th share to each sharer.¶47
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur · 16.11.2009
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs (respondents 1(a) to 1(d)) filed OS No.311/1996 for partition and separate possession of alleged joint family properties before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) and JMFC, Doddaballapur.¶1
Prior proceeding
Trial Court answered issues 1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative, issue 4 in the negative, and decreed the suit on 07.12.2006 awarding 1/3rd share to plaintiff-Chikkavenkatappa.¶7
Prior proceeding
Defendant Nos.1 and 3 preferred RA No.96/2006 before the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur.¶8
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part by judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009 and decreed the suit awarding 1/6th share to each sharer.¶1
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative, confirmed the Trial Court judgment and modified the relief.¶10

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
DODDAVENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS (LRs incl. SMT. YELAMMA, SRI.ANJINAPPA, SRI.D.YELAPPA, SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA, SRI.D.MUNIYAPPA, SMT.GANGAMMA, SRI.D.NAGARAJA)¶7
SRI.V.KESHAVA RAO MOHITHE
respondent
CHIKKAVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS (LRs incl. SMT.ANJANAMMA, MUNIYAPPA, YELLAKKA (deceased) by her LRs YELLAPPA, NAGARAJA, GANGAPPA, and SRI.C HANUMANTAHPPA)¶23
SRI.G B MANJUNATHA
respondent
GANGAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS (LR SMT.YALLAMMA)¶36
SRI.S.A.KHADRI
respondent
PATALAKKA @ VENKATAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS (LR SRI.VENKATASWAMY) — R3(A) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED¶40

Coram

AI extract

UMESH M ADIGAauthor¶49

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 10 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 18 Mar 2010
Case no.: RSA/701/2010
CNR: KAHC010293012010
Bench: Umesh M Adiga
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Umesh M Adiga

Shivakumar S K Vs Sridhara G
7 Nov 2025
Mr. Mohammed Andan Noorulla Vs Mr. H.N. Siddegowda
7 Nov 2025
Raghavendra Vs Shoukath
7 Nov 2025
Thimmaiah S/O Late Dasappa @ Dasa Bovi Vs Siddalingaiah S/O Late Dasappa @ Dasa Bovi
10 Nov 2025
Sri Puttanarasappa Vs Sri N Ramakrishnaiah
11 Nov 2025
Smt Lakshmamma Vs K Lingegowda
11 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Doddavenkatappa v. Chikkavenkatappa, RSA/701/2010 (KA), decided on 10 November 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 100

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009 in RA.No.96/2006 by which the First Appellate Court partly allowed the defendants' appeal, modified the trial court judgment and decree dated 7.12.2006 in OS.No.311/1996, and decreed the suit awarding 1/6th share to each sharer.Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur · 16.11.2009
Plaintiffs (respondents 1(a) to 1(d)) filed OS No.311/1996 for partition and separate possession of alleged joint family properties before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) and JMFC, Doddaballapur.
Trial Court answered issues 1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative, issue 4 in the negative, and decreed the suit on 07.12.2006 awarding 1/3rd share to plaintiff-Chikkavenkatappa.

View full history

Bench / Coram

UMESH M ADIGA

Parties & counsel