Sri. S. Muniraju, Vs Smt. Muniyamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri. S. Muniraju, Vs Smt. Muniyamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the courts below were justified in ignoring Ex.P.10 — the sale deed dated 30.03.1977 under which property was purchased in the name of plaintiff No.1 (a property not included in the suit schedule) — i.e., whether the appellant's defence that Sonnappa had settled one more property in favour of the plaintiffs was established (substantial question of law proposed by the appellant). +2 more

Court's answer

On meticulous perusal of the material on record, there is no cogent evidence placed on record to establish the appellant's defence that one more property was settled in favour of the plaintiffs during Sonnappa's lifetime.

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming that one more property had been settled by Sonnappa in favour of the plaintiffs, it was in the absolute competence of Sonnappa to settle that property on whomsoever he chose, as it was his self-acquired property; such a settlement could not defeat the plaintiffs' entitlement to the property left by him.

Key takeaways

Filing of the partition suit by the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 in respect of the property left behind by Sonnappa who died intestate, and the trial court's decree granting the plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the suit property, is just and proper and requires no further consideration in the second appeal, having regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.ratio¶¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition — Regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC (RSA No.1614 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka, Justice V Srishananda, oral judgment dated 07.07.2026) by defendant No.1 against confirmation of the decree granting the plaintiffs 1/3rd share in item No.1 of the suit property. Trial court (O.S.No.183/2015, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, decree dated 31.01.2023) had decreed the suit in part on the footing that all suit items were the self-acquired properties of late Sonnappa, who died intestate as regards item No.1; the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.34/2023, I Addl. District Judge, Kolar, judgment dated 01.10.2024) partly allowed the appeal but confirmed the grant. The appellant pressed three substantial questions of law: (i) courts below ignored Ex.P.10 sale deed dated 30.03.1977 by which property was purchased in plaintiff No.1's name (outside the suit schedule); (ii) courts below ignored P.W.1's admission of such purchase by late Sonnappa; (iii) the appellate appreciation of evidence caused a miscarriage of justice. Held: there is no cogent evidence on record establishing the defence of an additional settled property; moreover, even if one more property had been settled by Sonnappa on the plaintiffs, being the owner of self-acquired property he was in his absolute competence to settle it on whomsoever he chose, so the plea could not affect the plaintiffs' entitlement to the intestate property; the partition suit and the decree granting 1/3rd share were just and proper and required no further consideration within the scope of Section 100 CPC. Admission declined; appeal dismissed. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE NEAR MILK DIARY, VIRGONAGARA POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 049.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M. .B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O VENKATAPPA AGED 71 YEARS

SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O N SEENAPPA AGED 41 YEARS

SMT. BYRAMMA W/O N. SCENAPPA AGED 64 YEARS

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT SHAPUR VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI

KOLAR TALUK AND DIST. - 563 103.

SMT. T.S. SWARUPA RAI W/O D.N. RAMESH AGED 51 YEARS R/AT DINNAHALLI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.V. JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA P, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.06.2026, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.34/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.183/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.S.V.Jagannatha, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Lakshminarayana P., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Defendant No.1 is the appellant challenging the decreeing of the suit in O.S.No.183/2015 dated 31.01.2023 granting 1/3^rd share in item No.1 of the suit property which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.34/2023 dated 01.10.2024.

3. Facts of the case are as under:

3.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.183/2015 alleging

that they are the children of Sonnappa and Muniyamma and defendant No.1 is their brother and defendant No.2 is the purchaser of item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit properties and they are also having right in the suit properties and sought for partition and separate possession.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

3.2. Suit on contest came to be decreed in part granting 1/3^rd share only in item No.1 of the suit property holding that all of the items of the suit property are the self acquired properties of Sonnappa. Sonnappa and Muniyamma had four children namely Muniyamma, Chowdamma, Byramma and Muniraju. Out of the four children, Chowdamma died issueless and was unmarried. Plaintiffs are Muniyamma, Byramma and her son Muniraju. Defendant No.1 is the brother of Muniyamma and Byramma.

3.3. There is no dispute as to the relationship among the parties. Plaint averments itself shows that all the properties are the self acquired properties of late Sonnappa. Therefore, he had every right to deal with the property and he having sold the property in favour of defendant No.2, in respect of item Nos.2 to 4, suit is rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Judge.

3.4. Insofar as item No.1 of the suit properties are concerned, taking note of the fact that Chowdamma died, Muniyamma, Byramma and Muniraju having been granted 1/3^rd share and out of the share of Byramma, Muniraju, plaintiff No.2 is also entitled for the share.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.34/2023.

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and reappreciated the material evidence on record and disbelieved the defence taken by defendant No.1 that during the lifetime of Sannappa, he has purchased one more item of the suit property which has been settled in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the share in the suit properties and dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court, in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that both the Courts failed to appreciate that during the lifetime of Sonnappa, he has settled one more property in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, suit item No.1 being exclusively given to defendant No.1 resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on following substantial questions of law:

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

1. “Whether the Courts below were justified in ignoring Ex.P.10 the sale deed dated 30.03.1977 under which the property has been purchased in the name of plaintiff No.1, not included in the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the Courts below in ignoring the admission of P.W.1 with regard to the purchase of the property in the name of plaintiff No.1 by Late Sonnappa?

3. Whether the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the Appellate Court is resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court is not based on any legal and justifiable reason?”

Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments.

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

On such perusal of the material on record, to establish the defence of the appellant that there was one more property that was settled in favour of the plaintiffs, there is no cogent evidence placed on record.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34268 RSA No. 1614 of 2024

HC-KAR

Assuming that one more property has been settled

by Sonnappa in favour of the plaintiffs, it is in the absolute competence of Sonnappa to settle the property to whomsoever as said property was self acquired property of Sonnappa.

Therefore, in respect of the property left behind by Sonnappa who died intestate, filing this partition suit by the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 and Trial Court granting the decree of 1/3^rd share to the plaintiffs in the suit property is just and proper which requires no further consideration in this second appeal having regard to the scope of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.

13. Accordingly, following:

ORDER

i. Admission is declined.

ii. Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56/CT: BHK

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024 in R.A.No.34/2023 passed by the First Appellate Court (I Additional District Judge, Kolar), partly allowing the appeal and modifying the trial court's judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 in O.S.No.183/2015.¶¶25
I Additional District Judge, Kolar (First Appellate Court) · 01.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs (children of Sonnappa and Muniyamma) instituted O.S.No.183/2015 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, impleading defendant No.1 (their brother) and defendant No.2 (purchaser of item Nos.2 and 3), asserting right in the suit properties.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Relief claimed in the trial suit: partition and separate possession of the suit properties.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Trial court decreed the suit in part, granting the plaintiffs 1/3rd share only in item No.1 of the suit property, holding that all items of the suit property were self-acquired properties of Sonnappa.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
Family composition found by the trial court: Sonnappa and Muniyamma had four children — Muniyamma, Chowdamma, Byramma and Muniraju; Chowdamma died unmarried and issueless; plaintiffs are Muniyamma, Byramma and Byramma's son Muniraju; defendant No.1 is brother of Muniyamma and Byramma.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
Since the properties were pleaded as self-acquired of late Sonnappa, and he had sold item Nos.2 to 4 to defendant No.2, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit in respect of those items.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Share allocation by the trial court: Chowdamma having died, Muniyamma, Byramma and Muniraju were granted 1/3rd share each; out of Byramma's share, plaintiff No.2 Muniraju was also held entitled.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 filed R.A.No.34/2023 before the First Appellate Court (I Additional District Judge, Kolar).¶¶44
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court reappreciated the evidence and disbelieved the defence of defendant No.1 that during Sannappa's [sic] lifetime he had purchased one more item which stood settled in favour of the plaintiffs.¶¶45
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court held the plaintiffs were entitled to the share in the suit properties and dismissed the appeal (judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024).¶¶45
Prior proceeding
In the present regular second appeal, notice to respondent No.4 was dispensed with by order dated 18.06.2026.¶¶24