Dismissed¶43

Sri. Honnegowda v. Sannakka @ Neela

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025RSA/99/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 99 of 2019 (PAR); decided 07.11.2025 by Rajesh Rai K, J. Appellant: Sri Honnegowda (Defendant No.1) through Sri P Nataraju, Advocate. Respondents: Sannakka @ Neela (Respondent No.1/plaintiff) through Sri Vaishnavi G K, Advocate; Sri Jakie Suresh (Respondent No.2) served unrepresented. Subject: second appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent decrees in partition suit O.S. No.227/2010 (decree 12.06.2012, 1/2 share to plaintiff in ancestral properties) and first appeal R.A.No.6/2018 dismissed on delay (five years and 257 days) and merits; FDP No.7/2012 concluded and decree executed; no substantial question of law; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, and is therefore dismissed. ¶41

Sri. Honnegowda Vs Sannakka @ Neela — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45179 RSA No. 99 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2019 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, HUNASEKUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107, NOW RESIDING AT RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, BRAHMAPURA, NAGUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

¶12

(BY SRI P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

SANNAKKA @ NEELA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O. LATE SANNEGOWDA, R/AT HUNASEKUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45179 RSA No. 99 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI JAKIE SURESH,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE THAMMAIAH, R/AT CHATRADA BEEDHI, PERIYAPATNA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI VAISHNAVI G K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.10.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.6/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPTNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2012 PASSED IN O.S. NO.227/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Defendant No.1 has filed this regular second appeal.

¶28

The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants by claiming 1/2

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45179 RSA No. 99 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and grant such other relief. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 is his brother. The parents of plaintiff and defendant No.1 died about 10 years prior to filing of the suit, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who are their only legal heirs. Defendant No.2 is stranger to their family.

¶32

Since the suit schedule properties is ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and after the death of the Kartha of the family, the khatha was changed in the name of defendant No.1 behind the back of plaintiff. The said aspect was totally without the knowledge of the plaintiff. As such, she filed the suit for partition and separate possession before the Trial Court and the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and documents on record, opined that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only legal heirs of their father and the suit schedule properties were inherited by them from their grandfather. Since the land in question was of ancestral properties, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief she claimed. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by granting 1/2 share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45179 RSA No. 99 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The said judgment and decree was questioned by the defendants before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.6/2018. The said appeal was filed after lapse of five years and 257 days. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the evidence on record, so also considering the inordinate delay in filling the appeal, dismissed the appeal both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Hence, this appeal is filed by defendant No.1.

¶37

I have carefully considered the entire evidence on record and also the documents placed before this Court, it could be gathered from the record that the relation of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. After decreeing the suit, the plaintiff has filed FDP proceedings in FDP No.7/2012. The defendant appeared in the FDP proceedings and the same was allowed and decree passed by the Trial Court is executed. Such being the possession, the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal both on the merits as

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:45179 RSA No. 99 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

well as delay and laches. Hence, I find no such question of law,

¶42

much less substantial question of law in this appeal.

¶43

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶44