Sri K Ambarish Vs Sri Krishnappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri K Ambarish Vs Sri Krishnappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs (children of Defendant No.1) are entitled to a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, claimed under the unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 (Ex.P1). +1 more

Court's answer

The unregistered Partition Deed was marked in evidence as Ex.P1 subject to the condition of payment of duty and penalty, which the plaintiffs never paid; consequently, the right of the plaintiffs under the unregistered Partition Deed is not proved.

Ratio / Principle

During the lifetime of Muniswamappa, he along with his children i.e., Defendant Nos.1 to 5, sold the suit schedule property to Defendant Nos.6 and 7 as per the Sale Deed dated 04.10.1995 (Ex.P2); since Defendant No.1, the father of the plaintiffs, himself witnessed the execution of Ex.P2, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property under the unregistered Partition Deed.

Key takeaways

Both the Courts below correctly concluded that the plaintiffs cannot be declared owners of the suit schedule property based on the unregistered Partition Deed; as such they have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit schedule property, which originally belonged to their grandfather Muniswamappa, who sold it along with his children (Defendant Nos.1 to 5) in favour of Defendant Nos.6 and 7.ratio¶76
There is absolutely no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising for consideration in this second appeal; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Plaintiffs' Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) against confirmation of the dismissal of their suit for declaration and permanent injunction: DISMISSED — no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises. Plaintiffs (children of Defendant No.1) claimed title under an unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 (Ex.P1), which was marked in evidence subject to payment of duty and penalty that they never paid, so their right under it stood unproved. Per Ex.P2 (Sale Deed dated 04.10.1995), their grandfather Muniswamappa, along with his five sons (Defendant Nos.1 to 5), sold the suit property to Defendant Nos.6 and 7; Defendant No.1 himself attested the sale. Held: plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property; findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court correctly sustained. (Single judge; no cases cited; no dissent.)

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 890 OF 2019

(DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI K AMBARISH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

SMT K KAMALA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT K PADMA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

SMT K MANJULA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

SRI YELLAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

SMT MAMATHA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41YEARS,

SMT KOMALA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

SRI LOKESH D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

SMT VANITHA D/O LATE KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

SRI HARISH KUMAR S/O LATE KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

SHWETHA D/O LATE KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 11 ARE R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106

SRI C RAMESH

S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 EYARS, R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE VARTHURU HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.

SRI B.B NAGABHUSHANA S/O B.M VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.124, BELLANDURU VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.

THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 087.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-586 123.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

SRI K PRASANNA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R14 TO 16 A2-TRANSPOSED AS R17 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2024)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.97/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2496/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is plaintiffs' second appeal.

The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and

permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property.

The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property was the joint family and ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. Initially, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiffs' grandfather one Muniswamappa under family partition. Subsequently, the partition took place between the said Muniswamappa and his five sons-defendant Nos.1 to 5 vide Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 - EX.P1 and under the said partition, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1-father of the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 colluded with a dishonest intention sold the property to defendant Nos.6 and 7 under a nominal Sale Deed dated 04.10.1995 to avoid the

NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

6 -

HC-KAR

plaintiffs' rightful share. Hence, the plaintiffs preferred the suit for the aforesaid relief.

However, defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed written statement and denied the plaint averments by contending that though the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property, the plaintiffs were not in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Further, it is contended that the plaintiffs by creating an unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 - EX.P1 claimed their right, title, interest over the suit schedule property, which is inadmissible evidence. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs.

The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and after considering the evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that since the plaintiffs are claiming their title through Ex-P1 - unregistered Partition Deed, their title cannot be declared based on such an inadmissible document and on the said ground itself the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

declaration of title as claimed by them. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant Nos. 6 and 7. On perusal of the certified copy of the said Sale Deed, it is seen that one Muniswamappa s/o Kakaiah has executed the Sale Deed in favour of defendant Nos.6 and 7. It is clear from the recital of the said Sale Deed that the suit schedule property belongs to Muniswamappa, who is none other than the grandfather of the plaintiffs and father of defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the khata was standing in his name and he sold the suit schedule property for the family necessities and same has been accepted by defendant Nos.1 to 5. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on reappreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the unregistered Partition Deed which

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

is an inadmissible document itself is the sole ground to reject the plaintiffs' claim and there are no good grounds to remand the matter to the Trial Court as prayed by the plaintiffs and accordingly, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

As could be seen from records, the plaintiffs, being the children of defendant No.1, claims right over the suit schedule property relying on the unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.06.1995 in respect of the suit schedule property allegedly executed between defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Even though it is clearly barred under law to mark the unregistered Partition Deed, the said unregistered Partition Deed was marked in evidence as per Ex.P1 subject to the condition for payment of duty and penalty. However, the plaintiffs had not paid any duty or penalty on the said document. When such being the facts and circumstance of the case, the right of the plaintiffs under unregistered Partition Deed is not proved. During the lifetime of Muniswamappa, he along with his children i.e., defendant

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

HC-KAR

Nos. 1 to 5 sold the suit schedule property to defendant Nos. 6 and 7 as per the Sale Deed dated 04.10.1995 - Ex.P2. On perusal of Ex.P2, the same depicts that Muniswamappa was the vendor and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were the witnesses to the said Sale Deed. When defendant No.1, i.e., the father of the plaintiffs himself has witnessed the execution of the Sale Deed - Ex.P2, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property under the unregistered Partition Deed. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that both the Courts have correctly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot be declared as owners of the suit schedule property based on the unregistered Partition Deed and as such, they have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit schedule property as the property originally belonged to their grandfather one Muniswamappa who sold the property along with his children i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant Nos. 6 and 7.

NC: 2025:KHC:45094 RSA No. 890 of 2019

10 -

HC-KAR

In my view, there is absolutely no question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly

dismissed.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25