Sri Venkataswamy H.N. Vs Sri H.N. Narayanaswamy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Venkataswamy H.N. Vs Sri H.N. Narayanaswamy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants' contention that the consent deed Ex.D1 was not considered by the Courts below warrants interference with the concurrent findings rejecting Ex.D1 as inadmissible and unregistered. +1 more

Court's answer

Ex.D1 is not a registered document and was also not executed on proper stamp paper; therefore it cannot be considered an admissible document, and the appellants' contention that it was not considered cannot be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

The evidence of DW1 to DW3 with regard to Ex.D1 does not inspire confidence, as they gave contradictory versions on the purchase of the stamp paper (Taluk Office, Shivajinagar Bengaluru, and Sub-Registrar Office); these discrepancies were taken note of by the trial Court.

Key takeaways

The alleged loan said to have been cleared by defendant No.1 was not proved: the lender was not examined, no loan document was produced, and nothing was placed on record even for payment of the amount; hence the plea underlying Ex.D1 fails.ratio¶59
No ground exists to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law; consequently the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit — Concurrent findings — Consent deed — Admissibility. The suit schedule properties were held by the trial Court to be ancestral and joint family properties, and the suit was decreed granting 1/4th share. The defendants' sole substantive plea was that defendant No.1 cleared a loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, for which the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 executed a consent deed (Ex.D1) in his favour. Both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected this plea: Ex.D1 is unregistered and was not executed on proper stamp paper, and is therefore inadmissible; DW1 to DW3 gave mutually contradictory accounts of where the stamp paper was purchased (Taluk Office, Shivajinagar Bengaluru, Sub-Registrar Office); the alleged lender was never examined, and no loan document or proof of payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was produced. Interlocutory applications (I.A.Nos.3 and 9 under Order I Rule 10 CPC; I.A.Nos.4 and 8 under Order XLI Rule 27 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC) had been dismissed below. Holding that the concurrent findings suffer from no error and that no substantial question of law arises, the High Court (H.P. Sandesh J.) dismissed the regular second appeal at the admission stage under Order XLII Rule 2 read with Section 100 CPC.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 856 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATASWAMY H.N. SON OF LATE NADIPANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

NOTE: SENIOR CITIZEN RELIEF NOT CLAIMED

SRI H.N. VENUGOPAL SON OF LATE NADIPANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

SMT SUSHEELAMMA

DAUGHTER OF LATE NADIPANNA WIFE OF SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT SUNNAKALBEEDHI CHICKBALLAPUR CITY - 562 101 SENIOR CITIZEN RELIEF NOT CLAIMED

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MURALIDHARA P, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI H.N. NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE NADIPANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101

SRI N. MOULA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF KGN STAR FRUITS, NEAR BHAVANI STORE, B.R. ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR CITY - 562 101

SRI GUNTHAPALLI LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SRI SAI TEA STALL/ MILK PARLOR, B-B ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101 NOTE: SENIOR CITIZEN RELIEF NOT CLAIMED

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N THIMME GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 2 READ WITH SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.68/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.02.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.155/2017 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

This second appeal is listed for admission and the same is filed against the concurrent finding.

The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have let out the portion of Item No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. It is the defence of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that defendant No.1, in order to clear the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, had obtained a Consent Deed executed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, they were allowed to lead evidence.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

The trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Though the specific defence was taken by the defendants that a consent deed was executed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in terms of Ex.D1, the same was not accepted, particularly considering the answer elicited from the mouths of witnesses DW1 to DW3 regarding the purchase of the stamp paper. Moreover, the said document (Ex.D1) is an unregistered one. Hence, contention of the defendants was not accepted and the suit was decreed, granting relief of 1/4^th share in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.68/2020.

The First Appellate Court, having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

as to whether the appellants have made out grounds to permit them to include Item Nos.11 to 16 properties by way of amendment and whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court required interference. The First Appellate Court, reassessed the material available on the record, answered the point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and point No.4 in the affirmative, thereby justifying the grant of relief and confirming the judgment of trial Court.

The main contention of the appellants’ counsel before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material on record. Apart from that, when the applications I.A.Nos.3 and 9 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC as well as I.A.Nos.4 and 8 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC were filed, those applications were dismissed. It is also contended that the amendment was not required and that the First Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal by concurring with the judgment of The trial Court.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

The counsel also vehemently contended that when the document Ex.D1 was placed before the trial Court, the same was not considered. Hence, the matter requires interference and admission to frame a substantial question of law.

Per contra, the counsel appearing the respondents would submit that no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Though it is contended that the plaintiff had executed the document Ex.D1, a consent deed, to clear the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, the same is disputed and not proved. Moreover, the said document is not a registered one and all these factors were taken note of by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and dismissed the case of the appellants.

Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, it is the specific case of the appellants that the suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties and the nature of the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

properties is also not disputed by the defendants. The only contention of the defendants is that defendant No.1 has cleared the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and to clear the same, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have executed a consent deed.

On perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the trial Court with regard to the document Ex.D1, it is noted that the said document is not a registered document. Apart from that, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 with regard to the document Ex.D1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court, particularly with regard to the purchase of the stamp paper. One says that the stamp paper was purchased from Taluk Office and DW3 says that it was purchased at Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and again it was deposed that it was purchased from Sub-Registrar Office. All discrepancies were also taken note of by the trial Court.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

Apart from that, the First Appellate Court also, on reappreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, observed that though, document Ex.D1 is marked as a consent document, it was marked subject to objection. DW2 and DW3, being the executants, were also examined as witnesses before the Court, but the plaintiff categorically denied the same. The said document is also not a registered document and the same cannot be considered and is not an admissible document. The First Appellate Court also, in paragraph No.38 discussed the same in detail. When the document Ex.D1 is not a registered document and also not executed on proper stamp paper, the same cannot be considered as an admissible document.

Defendant No.1 has not chosen to examine the person, who has lent the amount to Nadipanna and has also not produced any loan document for having availed the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. Nothing is placed on record even for having paid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. A

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43798 RSA No. 856 of 2025

HC-KAR

detailed discussion was made by the First Appellate Court and the same was confirmed. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants that Ex.D1 was not considered cannot be accepted, as the same is not an admissible document and was also not registered. Hence, the question of framing any substantial question of law does arise.

Hence I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law in this second appeal. Hence, I pass the following order:

a) The second appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

HA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55