H.N.Nagarathnamma Vs Mallamma

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.798 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.N.NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE SOWBHAGYA AGE : 46 YEARS

¶9

H N NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE SOWBHAGYA AGE : 45 YEARS

¶10

H N DEVARAJ S/O LATE SOWBHAGYA AGE : 43 YEARS

¶11

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

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MARUTHINILAYA 1^ST LINK, 4^TH CROSS MARUTHI NAGAR SHETTIHALLI, TUMAKURU.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI YATHISH KUMAR.K.N, ADVOCATE;

¶15

VIDE ORDER DATED 16.06.2026, APPEAL AGAINST A1 AND A3 DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MALLAMMA AGE : 54 YEARS W/O LATE MARIYAPPA R/AT VINAYAKANAGARA SHETTIHALLI

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

TUMAKURU-572 102.

¶22

JAYAMMA AGE 49 YEARS W/O SHETTALLAPPA R/AT GAJANANA NAGARA 6^TH WARD, BHEEMASANDRA S S M C POST TUMAKURU-572 102.

¶23

GOWRAMMA AGE : 44 YEARS W/O LATE SHETTALLAPPA R/AT C/O JAYAMMA GAJANANA NAGARA 6^TH WARD, BHEEMASANDRA S S M C POST TUMAKURU-572 103.

¶24

NARASAMMA AGE : 59 YEARS W/O RANGASWAMAIAH R/O VINAYAKANAGARA BETWEEN PALASANDRA AND SHETTIHALLI TUMAKURU-572102.

¶25

NANJAMMA AGE : 54 YEARS W/O NARASIMHAIAH R/AT KUNDUR ROAD DEVARAYAPATNA-572105 TUMKURU TALUK

¶26

GANGAMMA AGE: 44 YEARS W/O PUTTARANGAIAH R/AT GULUR HOBLI-572104 GULIHARAVE POST TUMAKURU TALUK

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

7. SHANTHAMMA

¶30

W/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT DASARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE-572216 KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK.

¶31

MANJAMMA AGE : 34 YEARS W/O RAMANNA CARPENTER R/AT NEAR BYPASS ROAD THORE HANUMANTHAPURA TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶32

GOWRAMMA AGE: 33 YEARS S/O ADIKE RAMANNA R/AT NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE TIGALARABEEDI KYATHASANDRA-572106 TUMAKURU TALUK

¶33

SOUBHAGYA AGE : 29 YEARS W/O RAJANNA S/O THIMMANNA R/AT NAGAVALLI MAIN ROAD NAGAVALLI GULUR HOBLI-572104 TUMAKURU TALUK

¶34

SHIVANNA AGE 53 YEARS S/O NANJUNDAPPA BEHIND UTTARAKATTE SHETTIHALLI-572103 KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

BASAVARAJU S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O 6^TH CROSS S I T EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶39

SHIVALINGA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O 6^TH CROSS S I T EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572101.

¶40

RAJA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT 6^TH CROSS S I T EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶41

RENUKA W/O LATE KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT SIDDALINGAIAHNAPALYA TUMAKURU CITY NOW R/AT 6^TH CROSS MARIYAPPA COMPOUND S I T EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶42

ABHISHEK S/O LATE KUMAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶43

17. DEEPAK

¶44

AGE : 17 YEARS S/O LATE KUMAR MINOR R/B N/G MOTHER R-15 RENUKA

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

R 16 AND R17

¶49

R/AT SIDDALINGAIAHNAPALYA 6^TH CROSS, MARIYAPPA COMPOUND, SIT EXTENSION, TUMAKURU.

¶50

RANGAPPA AGE 48 YEARS S/O KAMBAIAH RETIRED HMT EMPLOYEE GOKULA EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572102.

¶51

LAKSHMAMMA AGE 68 YEARS W/O LATE RATHNAIAH SHETTY

¶52

RAJU AGE 38 YEARS S/O LATE RATHNAIAH SHETTY

¶53

RESPONDENT NOs.19 AND 20 ARE R/AT 8^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, S S PURAM TUMAKURU-572101.

¶54

THIPPESWAMY AGE : 44 YEARS LECTURER R/AT MEDIGESHI MEDIGESHI-572132 HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TQ

¶55

SHIVAMMA D/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT JOSNA VILLA 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS SIR NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.170/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU.

¶61

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶62

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶63

Sri Patel D. Kare Gowda, learned advocate had filed the present appeal in respect of three appellants viz., (i) H.N.Nagarathnamma, (ii) H.N.Narasimhamurthy and (iii)H.N. Devaraj, who are the legal representatives of original third defendant in O.S.No.60/2005.

¶64

After obtaining no objection from Sri Patel D.Kare Gowda, Sri H.N.Narasimhamurthy alone has engaged the services of Sri Yathish Kumar K.N. and he has filed power for appellant No.2 who is defendant No.3(b).

¶65

As such, appeal in respect of defendant Nos.3(a) and 3(c) i.e., appellant Nos.1 and 3 stands dismissed for non prosecution.

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Heard Sri Yathish Kumar K.N., learned counsel for appellant No.2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to respondents, having regard to the nature and scope of the appeal.

¶69

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶70

A suit in O.S No. 60/2005 for partition came to be filed by Smt.Mallamma and others being the legal representatives of late Najundappa in respect of the following properties.

¶71

1. “Wet land bearing S.No.169 of Shettihalli Village, Tumkur Taluk, measuring 2.01 guntas, assessed at 3.86 paise, bounded on the: East : Lands of Nanjundaiah and others, West: Rangaswamaiah, North : Ganganna, South: Halla.

¶72

2. Land bearing S.No.42/2 measuring total 1.28 guntas, out of which 0.28 guntas of Tumkur Kasaba Village, Tumkur Taluk bounded on the: East : Road, West: Road, North : House of Siddalingegowda and others, South: Vacant sites of others.

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ PÀ¸À¨Á UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 42/2 gÀ°è (J¸ï.L.n §qÁªÀuÉ) 6£ÉÃ

¶76

PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¤¹¥À¯ï SÁvÁ £ÀA§gï 639 «¹ÛÃtð 35 x 32 CrAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢: ¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ : gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ, zÀQëtPÉÌ : ºÉAa£À ªÀÄ£É.

¶77

vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.42/2 gÀ°è (ºÁ° J¸ï.L.n §qÁªÀuÉ 6£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï)£À°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¤¹¥À¯ï SÁvÁ £ÀA§gï 640 «¹ÛÃtð 65 x 32 CrAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢ : ¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ : gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ, zÀQëtPÉÌ : Dgï¹¹ ªÀÄ£É.

¶78

vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 42/2 gÀ°è (ºÁ° 'J¸ï.L.n §qÁªÀuÉ 6£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï)£À°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¤¹¥À¯ï SÁvÁ £ÀA§gï 692 «¹ÛÃtð 65 x 20 CrAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢:

¶79

¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ : gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¹zÀÝ°AUÉÃUËqÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É zÀQëtPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ,

¶80

vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á (ºÁ° J¸ï.L.n §qÁªÀuÉ) 6£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÉð

¶81

£ÀA.42/2 gÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¤¹¥À¯ï SÁvÁ £ÀA§gï 693 «¹ÛÃtð 65 x 30 CrAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ PÉA¥ÀÅ ºÉAa£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÆ SÁ° eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢:

¶82

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ :SÁ° eÁUÀ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : £ÀA§gï 692 gÀ ªÀÄ£É, zÀQëtPÉÌ : SÁ° eÁUÀ. ”

¶85

Said suit on contest came to be dismissed.

¶86

In the written statement filed by the present appellants who are the legal representative of deceased third defendant, no doubt there was a prayer that in the property that has fallen to the share of first defendant Mariyappa, they are entitled for 1/5^th share.

¶87

However, no separate court fee was paid nor a counter claim was laid, except making a prayer that they are entitled for 1/5^th share in the property of the first defendant.

¶88

After dismissal of the suit, it is the present appellants being the legal representative of third defendant, filed R.A No. 170/2019.

¶89

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

appeal of the present appellants on merits, after condoning the delay by the judgment dated 14.02.2022.

¶94

Being further aggrieved by the same, present Second Appeal is filed on following grounds and substantial questions of law.

¶95

Both the courts below have failed to notice and appreciate the pleadings and the evidence on record and the dismissal of the suit is illegal, unjust and the judgments and decree of the courts below is liable to be set aside.

¶96

The courts below have erred in not appreciating that the original propitious had 3 sons and 2 daughters, and all are entitle for a share in the suit properties. But the Ex.D8 the registered partition deed dated:2510-65 is only among 3 sons, which is also not equitable partition. All the 3 sons have got share each in Sy.No.43/2 but no share is allotted in item No.. of the suit property i.e., Sy.No.42/2 in favour of Nanjappa and Nanjundappa. Hence Ex.D8 itself is illegal and not to be acted upon.

¶97

Further the courts below have erred in holding that issue No.3 and 5 does not arise for consideration. When the plaintiff and contesting defendants have denied the examination of the Registered Will Ex.D5 dated: 8-10-93 as got up and fabricated, executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant 6 to 8,

¶98

11 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

observing that it is not the scope of preliminary decree and the case pleaded by the defendants have to be gone into at the stage of final decree proceedings in the separate suit.

¶102

The trial court has erred in reasoning's that the defendants have to file separate suit for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of will being setup and fabricated and if the defendants fails to prove the due execution of the Will. Then the plaintiffs and defendants 4,5 and 12 will get their share in the suit properties as clause II heirs of the first defendant and if the execution of the Will is proved by defendant 6 to 8 then the claim of the plaintiffs (a) to (c) and defendants 4,5 and 12 would be answered in the negative. This observation and approach of the courts below is illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

¶103

The trial court also erred in answering additional issue No.1 has does not arise for consideration for the same reasons assigned in respect of item No.3 and 5, observing that the plaintiffs (a) to (c) and defendants 4, 5 and 12 are at liberty to get the relief in a separate suit or in the final decree proceedings.

¶104

Both the courts below have failed to notice and appreciate that the defendants 6 to 8 have failed to produced the original will. But what has been produced is only the certified copy of the Will and not the original. The Appellate Court has erred in accepting the reasoning given by the defendants 6 to

¶105

12 -

¶106

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

8 and erred in accepting he certified copy as secondary evident since the will is registered when the very execution of the will is denied as got up and concocted. Further no police complaint is given and no public notice in the newspaper about loss of original Will. The DW3 who is the advocate drafted the will said will is examined and nothing is elicited about the loss of will and custody of the will.

¶109

 The first appellate court has erred in not appreciating that thumb impression Register from the sub Registrar office on the Will and sending in the same to the hand writing expert to compare the same with the admitted Thumb impression of Defendant No.1 on the registered partition deed Ex.D8 and the opinion of the expert is that the questioned and admitted LTMs are identified and one and the same. But the said hand writing expert is not examined in the court and the report is also not marked.

¶110

Further there is glaring contradiction in the evidence of DW2 and DW3. As per DW3 the Will was drafted and signed on 8-10-93 and registered on 6-11-93. But DW2 the attester says the execution and the registration took place on the same day. But the court has observed that there is a huge gap of 25 years from the date of the Will and date of giving deposition and erred in holding that such a minor details will not prove fatal to the case of the contesting defendants and will not falsify the will.

¶111

13 -

¶112

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

The first appellate court has erred in not appreciating that the Will is registered on 8-10-93 and the Testator of the will died on 26-2-94, within a short span of time, as such it pre-supposes that the Will is not signed by the profounder of the Will in a sound state of mind, with free will coupled with glaring contradiction between DW2 and DW3 which leads the execution of the Will is under suspicious circumstances.

¶115

The appellants are the sons and daughters of defendant No.3, who is the daughter of late Gurunanjaiah, sister of defendant No.1 is also entitle to a share in the suit properties. Both the courts below have erred in not appreciating this aspect of the matter. Both the daughters of Gurunanjaiah are not parties to either to the partition Deed or the Will, as such the judgements and decrees of the courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶116

The judgments and decrees of the courts below are illegal and unjust and not in consonance with the pleadings and evidence on record and liable to be set aside.

¶117

The appellants have not preferred any appeal, revision or any petition or proceedings before this court or any other court or forum on the same cause of action. Hence this appeal.”

¶118

14 -

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW;

¶122

I. Whether the Ex.D8 Registered Partition Deed dated (left blank by the appellant) affected only between the 3 sons of the profounder Gurunanjaiah without giving any share to the daughters Sowbhagya, Deft No.3 the mother of appellants is legal and binding on the appellants share.?

¶123

II. Whether Ex.D8 is binding on the plaintiffs and deft No.2 when no share is allotted out of Sy.No.42/2 in 1A, 28 guntas as it is not equitable partition.?

¶124

III. Whether the Registered Will ExD5 dated: 8-10-93, by defendant No.1 in favour of executed defendant No.6 to 8 is legal, just and proper?

¶125

IV. Whether the appellants are entitle for a share in the suit properties. When undisputedly the suit properties are the joint family properties in spite of Ex.D5 and Ex D8 for which the appellants are not parties to it.?

¶126

V. Whether the judgments and decree of the courts below are sustainable in law or liable to be set aside.”

¶127

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

Sri Yathish Kumar, learned counsel for the second appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that both the Courts failed to notice and appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the suit and thus sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.

¶130

He would further contend that the original propositus had three sons and two daughters. Therefore, all are entitled for share in the suit property. But Exhibit D-8/registered partition deed dated 25.10.1965 is only among the three sons. Therefore, same would not bind the daughters.

¶131

He also argued that both the Courts erred in holding that issue Nos.3 and 5 would not arise for consideration when the plaintiffs and contesting defendants have denied execution of registered will at Exhibit D-5 dated 08.10.1993.

¶132

He would also contend that finding recorded by the Trial Court that defendants have to file separate suit for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of the Will is erroneous and plaintiff and defendant Nos.4, 5 and 12 will get their share in

¶133

16 -

¶134

NC: 2026:KHC:29288 RSA No. 798 of 2022

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

the suit properties as class II heirs of defendant No.1 and therefore sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

¶137

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶138

On such perusal of the material on record, in the first place, appellants did not have any right to challenge the dismissal of the suit, as there was no counter claim made in the suit.

¶139

Nevertheless, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants on merits while reappreciating the material on record.

¶140

When the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed who is the party respondent in this appeal and in the absence of any challenge to the said finding by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, the present Second Appeal filed by one of the defendants is not maintainable.

¶141