Smt Sharadamma v. Sri Basavaraju

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026RSA/1094/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition and separate possession suit; joint family property claim; previous partition admitted in plaintiff's own earlier plaint in O.S.No.323/1984; suppression/non-disclosure of earlier litigation by plaintiff; Ex.D.17 / Ex.D.27 plaint copy confronted to P.W.1; concurrent findings of courts below; substantial questions of law answered against appellant; speculative litigation; costs of Rs.20,000 imposed on appellants; Mallenahalli village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur; Section 100 CPC; RSA dismissed; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

No relief to appellants: admission declined and the regular second appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000 imposed on the legal representatives of the plaintiff, payable to the contesting respondents. ¶¶136

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri Basavaraju — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶136

Issue for consideration

Proposed substantial question (a): Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition although the defence of previous partition was not established with cogent and material evidence. +2 more

¶¶107

Court's answer

The plaint copy of O.S.No.323/1984 (Ex.D.27) confronted to P.W.1 clearly recorded a previous partition between the grandfather of the plaintiff and the grandfather of defendant No.1; the plaintiff's own earlier pleading therefore contained an admission of prior partition.

¶¶120

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff suppressed the filing of the earlier suit O.S.No.323/1984 in the present suit and did not retract that position even after the written statement was filed by the defendants.

¶¶119

Key takeaways

Both courts below categorically held that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit properties as joint family properties, particularly in light of his admission in O.S.No.323/1984 made when he was aged about 35 years; the Trial Judge had recorded that in view of that admission the suit properties cannot be held to be joint family properties.ratio¶¶127
The suit was to be treated as a speculative suit, continued in appeal even after the categorical Trial Court finding based on the plaintiff's admission in O.S.No.323/1984.ratio¶¶128

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC (RSA No.1094 of 2017, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 15.06.2026, V Srishananda, J.) against concurrent dismissal of a partition suit. The original plaintiff Shivanna sued in O.S.No.537/2000 for partition and separate possession of eight scheduled properties claiming they were joint family properties; the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 25.10.2013, and the First Appellate Court dismissed RA No.180/2013 on 12.04.2017. His legal representatives' second appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000. The High Court found that the plaintiff had suppressed the filing of his own earlier suit O.S.No.323/1984, in which (while aged about 35) he had pleaded a previous partition between the grandfather of the plaintiff and the grandfather of defendant No.1; that plaint copy (referred to as Ex.D.27 when confronted to P.W.1, and as Ex.D.17 in the Trial Court discussion) grounded the concurrent finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit properties as joint family properties. No merit was found in any of the proposed substantial questions of law; the suit and appeal were characterised as speculative litigation curbed by imposition of cost.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHARADAMMA WIFE OF LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶9

SRI. OMKARMURTHY SON OF LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶10

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. M.S. RAMYA DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶12

(BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

SRI. BASAVARAJU SON OF LATE YENJARA SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI.CHIKKANNAIAH SON OF VEERAPPAJI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶18

SRI. UGRAIAH SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶19

SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA WIFE OF YENJARAPPA, AGED AOBUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶20

SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶21

SRI. SWAMY SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶22

SRI. RENUKAIAH SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶26

SMT.CHANNABASAPPA WIFE OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶27

SMT.BASAMMA WIFE OF LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶28

SMT.BHADRAKALAMMA WIFE OF LATE CHANNABASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶29

SMT.DEVEERAMMA WIFE OF SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT RUDRESHWARA NILAYA, ANNAPOORNESHWARI PROVISION STORE, 8TH CROSS, WARD NO.17, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, SANNAKKI BAYALU BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶30

SRI.PUJAR RAMAIAH SON OF MADDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SRI. NAJAIAH SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶34

THE SUB REGISTRAR TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R11 AND R12

¶37

R1, R4, R5, R6 TO R9, R14, R14 ARE SERED;

¶38

VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2026, APPEAL AGAINST R3 AND R10 STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶39

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST

¶40

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.4.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.180/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.537/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

Heard Sri.P.M.Gopi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 11 and 12.

¶48

Unsuccessful plaintiff is represented by his legal representatives are the appellants challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.537/2000 dated 25.10.2013 which was confirmed in RA No.180/2013 dated 12.04.2017.

¶49

A suit for partition and separate possession came to

¶50

be filed in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) by the original plaintiff – Shivanna:

¶51

a. Land bearing Sy.No.38, measuring 9 acres and 21 guntas situated at Mallenahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶52

East - Chikkannaiah’s land

¶53

West – Malleshaiah and Veerabasavaiah’s land

¶54

North – Talvar Doddaiah’s land

¶55

South – Huchanna’s land

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

b. Land bearing Sy.No.65/1, measuring 4 acres and 39 guntas situated at Huchabasavanahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶59

East - Kempeeraiah’s Nanjaiah’s land West – M.N.Veerabasaiah’s land North – Boramma and Shivaganganna’s land

¶60

South – Yelagaiah’s land

¶61

c. Land bearing Sy.No.43/2, measuring 2 acres and 12 guntas situated at Mallenahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶62

East - Sadashivaiah’s land

¶63

West – Chidanandaiah’s land

¶64

North – Huchanna’s land

¶65

South – Road

¶66

d. Land bearing Sy.No.43/4, measuring 1 acre and 17 guntas situated at Mallenahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶67

East - Road

¶68

West – Gowdanagaiah’s land

¶69

North – Road

¶70

South – Shivanandaiah’s land

¶71

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

e. Land bearing Sy.No.65/2, measuring 3 acres and 33 guntas situated at Huchabasavanahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶74

East - Kempeeraiah’s land West – Malleshaiah and Veerabasavaiah’s land North – Boramma and Shivaganganna’s land South – Shivarundramma’s land

¶75

f. Land bearing Khanishumari No.6, mudroofed house situated at Mallenahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶76

East - Eramma’s land West – Seenapp’s land North – Gramatana South – School

¶77

g. Land bearing Sy.No.38/1, measuring 4 acres and 21 guntas situated at Mallenahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶78

East - Chikkannaiah’s land

¶79

West – Malleshaiah and Veerabasavaiah’s land

¶80

North – Talvar Doddaiah’s land

¶81

South – Huchanna’s land

¶82

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

h. Land bearing Old Sy.No.35 New Sy.No.53, measuring 3 acres and 21 guntas situated at Mallenahalli, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and bounded by:

¶86

East and West – Doddaobalaiah’s land

¶87

North – Kharab Halla

¶88

South – Boramma’s land

¶89

During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff died

¶90

and his legal representatives were brought on record.

¶91

Plaintiff contended that suit properties are the joint family properties and he is in joint possession with the defendants. It is also contended that the suit properties are tried to be meddled with by the defendants denying the share to the plaintiff and therefore, sought for partition and separate possession.

¶92

Suit was resisted by the defendants by contending

¶93

that there was a previous partition during the lifetime of grandfather of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.1.

¶94

Defendants also contended that in fact, plaintiff was aged about 35 years when he filed a suit in O.S.No.323/1984 and in that suit itself, he has pleaded that there was a previous

¶95

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

partition during the lifetime of grandfather of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.1 and whatever the property that has fallen to the share of his father, he has sold several properties in the year 1965, 1966 and 1967 itself and thus sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶98

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, took into consideration of the plaint copy filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.323/1984 which was marked as Ex.D.17, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff failed to prove that suit properties are the joint family properties and plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit property along with the defendants.

¶99

Being aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of the original plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.180/2013.

¶100

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal on merits.

¶101

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

Being further aggrieved by the same, legal

¶104

representatives of the original plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

¶105

Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that at the time of filing the suit in O.S.No.537/2000, plaintiff has suppressed the filing of earlier suit in O.S.No.323/1984 and therefore, nothing is mentioned in the plaint about the previous suit.

¶106

He would further contend that even after the disposal of the said suit, item No.7 of the suit properties stands in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, suit properties are to be construed as joint family properties and thus sought for admitting the appeal on following substantial questions of law:

¶107

a) “Whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition without there being materialization of the defence raised by the defendants by placing cogent and material evidence to prove that there was partition of the suit schedule properties?

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

b) Whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit though the suit of the plaintiffs required to be decreeing for the latches of proving the earlier partition by the defendant?

¶112

c) Whether the courts below are justified in having concurrent find and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit schedule properties without any satisfactory evidence on record to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs?”

¶113

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 11 and 12 would oppose the appeal grounds by contending that when there is a specific admission in the suit filed in the year 1984, when the plaintiff was aged about 35 years in O.S.No.323/1994 as to the previous partition that took place between grandfather of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.1, it should not lie in the mouth of plaintiff that suit properties are the joint family properties.

¶114

He would further contend that mere revenue entries would not confer right in respect of the parties especially when there is a clear admission by one of the parties in a previous suit and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶115

12 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶119

On such perusal of the material on record, plaintiff has suppressed the filing of the earlier suit in O.S.No.323/1984 in the present suit. The plaintiff did not retrace the steps even after written statement was filed by the defendants.

¶120

Ex.D.27 is the plaint copy that has been confronted to P.W.1. In the plaint copy, it has been clearly mentioned that there was a previous partition between the grandfather of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.1.

¶121

Atleast at that point of time, if the plaintiff has terminated the suit, probably he would not have been liable for the cost. But he maintained that suit properties are the joint family properties and suffered a decree.

¶122

During the course of the suit, plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record and they ventured to file an appeal before the First Appellate Court even after coming to know about the probative value of Ex.D.27 and averments made in the present suit in O.S.No.537/2000.

¶123

13 -

¶124

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

However, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that plaintiffs are the rustic villagers and they did not know the consequences of pursuing the appeal further and therefore, they may not be penalized for the cost.

¶127

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, both the Courts have categorically held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the nature of the properties as joint family properties especially in the light of the admission made by the original plaintiff in O.S.No.323/1984 when he was aged about 35 years.

¶128

Thus, suit is to be treated as speculative suit which got continued in the appeal also after a categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge that in view of the admission made by the plaintiff in O.S.No.323/1984, suit properties cannot be held to be the joint family properties.

¶129

Accordingly, this Court does not find any merits in any one of the substantial questions of law raised in the second appeal and second appeal is further in the nature of speculative spirit of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff which needs to be curbed by imposing suitable cost.

¶130

14 -

¶131

NC: 2026:KHC:29857 RSA No. 1094 of 2017

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

25. Accordingly, following:

¶134

ORDER

¶135

i. Admission is declined .

¶136

ii. Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/payable by the legal representatives of the plaintiff to the contesting respondents.

¶137

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶138

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 12.04.2017 in RA No.180/2013 dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 in O.S.No.537/2000 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II.¶¶40
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU · 12.04.2017
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff had earlier filed O.S.No.323/1984 (when he was aged about 35 years) in which he himself pleaded that there was a previous partition during the lifetime of the grandfather of the plaintiff and the grandfather of defendant No.1; the defendants also contended he had sold several properties in 1965, 1966 and 1967.¶¶94
Prior proceeding
Original plaintiff Shivanna instituted O.S.No.537/2000 for partition and separate possession of eight scheduled immovable properties (lands Sy.Nos.38, 65/1, 43/2, 43/4, 65/2, Khanishumari No.6 house, Sy.No.38/1 and Old Sy.No.35/New Sy.No.53).¶¶50
Prior proceeding
Defendants resisted the suit contending there was a previous partition during the lifetime of the grandfather of the plaintiff and the grandfather of defendant No.1.¶¶93
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record.¶¶89
Prior proceeding
Learned Trial Judge, considering the plaint copy of O.S.No.323/1984 (marked Ex.D.17), dismissed the suit on 25.10.2013 holding the plaintiff failed to prove the suit properties were joint family properties or that he was in joint possession.¶¶98
Prior proceeding
Legal representatives of the original plaintiff filed first appeal RA No.180/2013 before the First Appellate Court.¶¶99
Prior proceeding
The First Appellate Court, after securing records and hearing parties in detail, dismissed the appeal on merits on reappreciation of the material on record (judgment dated 12.04.2017).¶¶100
Prior proceeding
In the present second appeal, R1, R4, R5, R6 to R9 and R14 were noted as served, and by order dated 08.06.2026 the appeal against R3 and R10 stood dismissed as abated.¶¶38

Smt Sharadamma v. Sri Basavaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharadamma v. Sri Basavaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamundi Vs D.S.Ravishankar

Smt. Gowramma Vs Rajanna

Sri Gubbi Huchaiah Vs Sri Siddalingaiah

Shivaramaiah Vs Sri K Rangaswamy

Smt. Rajamma Vs Sri Kumara

K Mohan Rao Vs Charli Kuvela