Dismissed¶197

Puttamma v. Anna Bovi Dead by Lrs

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026RSA/898/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:15669. Partition suit - prior partition - burden of proof on defendants - oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 inconsistent, hearsay, lacking particulars - no documentary or contemporaneous evidence - palupatti reference unsupported - substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC - plea of non-inclusion of all properties and all parties not entertainable without pleadings, issues and evidence - new plea not raisable first time in second appeal - mixed question of fact and law - joint family property - Giriya Bovi propositus - mutation entries and revenue records - Holenarasipura, Hassan district - second appeal dismissed, concurrent findings confirmed.

What did the court decide?

None; the judgment and decree of the courts below stands confirmed. ¶197

Puttamma Vs Anna Bovi Dead by Lrs — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the judgment and decree of the courts below stands confirmed.

¶197

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit was not maintainable by virtue of earlier partition? +1 more

¶74

Court's answer

The burden of proving the prior partition was cast on the defendants; the oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 lacks consistency, is unsupported by any documentary evidence, and is insufficient to discharge that burden.

¶151

Ratio / Principle

DW1 (defendant No.1) made a categorical admission in cross-examination that she does not know about the alleged earlier partition, contradicting her chief examination; her evidence is inconsistent, unreliable and insufficient to prove partition.

¶135

Key takeaways

The evidence does not disclose specific details of the alleged partition: it is based largely on hearsay and does not establish the date of partition, mode of division or identification of shares or properties.ratio¶151
Cumulatively, DW1 to DW3 admit lack of personal knowledge of the alleged partition; the reference to palupatti in their testimony is unsupported by pleadings and documents and is contrary to the defendants' own case, affecting credibility.ratio¶156
Substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellants: the alleged prior partition is not established either through pleadings or evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, RSA No. 898 of 2010 (PAR) (NC: 2026:KHC:15669), decided 17.03.2026 (K.S. Hemalekha, J.). Defendants' second appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent decrees in O.S.No.155/2003 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Holenarasipura, decree dated 11.09.2008) and R.A.No.183/08 (Fast Track Court and Additional District Judge, Holenarasipura, decree dated 08.01.2010), whereby the plaintiffs were granted a one-fourth share in a suit for partition of properties of the common ancestor Giriya Bovi. Held: (i) Substantial Question No.1 - the plea of a prior partition allegedly effected 60-70 years ago during Giriya Bovi's lifetime was not established; the burden lay on the defendants, and the evidence of DW1 to DW3 was inconsistent, hearsay-based, lacking material particulars (date, mode of division, allotment of shares) and wholly unsupported by documents; DW1's cross-examination admissions contradicted her chief examination. (ii) Substantial Question No.2 - the contention that the 'all properties and all parties' principle was not followed was not entertainable: there was no pleading in the written statement, no issue framed and no evidence led; a new plea, being a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal. Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the courts below confirmed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.898 OF 2010 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PUTTAMMA

¶11

W/O VENKATARAMU,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶13

PRAKASH

¶14

S/O LATE PUTTABOVI,

¶15

AGED 37 YEARS,

¶16

RAJA BOVI S/O CHINNODA BOVI, AGED 64 YEARS,

¶17

GIRI SWAMY

¶18

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

S/O CHINNODA BOVI, AGED 62 YEARS,

¶20

THAMMA BOVI S/O CHINNODA BOVI, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶21

CHIKKAMMA W/O VENKATARAMU,

¶22

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶23

GOWRAMMA W/O PUTTA BOVI,

¶24

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶26

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VADDARA PALYA, KATTEBALAGULL DHAKLE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, H.N. PUR TALUK-573102 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶29

&APPELLANTS

¶30

(BY SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE AND SRI M.K. SANDEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

ANNA BOVI, DEAD BY LRs.

1. SIOMANNA

W/O ANNA BOVI,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

KUMAR

¶37

S/O ANNA BOVI,

¶38

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶39

3. THAMMA BOVI S/O PAPA BOVI,

¶40

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶41

GIRIYABOVI

¶42

S/O PAPA BOVI, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR. NAMELY THAYAMMA,

4. THAYAMMA

W/O GIRIYA BOVI,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

MATA BOVI S/O CHIKKA BOVI,

¶47

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶48

LAXMANA

W/O KALLANNA,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

SHIVARAJU S/O KALLANNA,

¶55

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶56

DASAPPA S/O CHINNASWAMY,

¶57

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶58

ALL ARE RESIDING AT VADDARA PALYA, KATTEBALAGULL DHAKLE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, H.N. PUR TALUK-573102 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶59

&RESPONDENTS

¶60

(NOTICES TO R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-6 TO R-8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶61

APPEAL AGAINST R-3 & R-5 STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED V/O DATED 09/02/2021)

¶62

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.183/08 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.155/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), HOLENARASIPURA.

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶68

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶69

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants

¶70

1 to 7 challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below in OS No. 155/2003 dated 11.09.2008 and First Appellate Court in R.A 183/2008 dated 08.01.2010, whereby the suit for partition and separate possession came to be partly decreed granting one fourth share to the plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the defendants came to be dismissed confirming the said decree.

¶71

This Court while admitting the appeal on

¶72

17.02.2021 framed the following substantial questions of

¶73

law :

¶74

(i) Whether the suit was not maintainable by virtue of earlier partition?

¶75

(ii) Whether the principles of partition suit 3 8All properties and all parties9, not followed?

¶76

This Court has heard the learned counsel

¶77

appearing for the appellants on the substantial questions

¶78

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

of law framed by this Court. Though the respondents are

¶82

served, they have remained unrepresented.

¶83

Brief Facts

¶84

The family genealogical tree is culled out as

¶85

under:

¶86

ªÀA±À ªÀÈPÀë
ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀÄgÀµÀ
VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« (¥ËªÀw)
1£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw ZÀ£ÀßªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) 2£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw aPÀÌªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw)
aPÀÌ¨ÉÆÃ« (¥ËªÀw) ¥Á¥À¨ÉÆÃ« (¥ËªÀw) PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« (¥ËªÀw) a£ÉÆÃqÀ¨ÉÆÃ« (¥ËªÀw)
PÀtªÀ£ÀÄß (¥ËªÀw)
ºÉAqÀw
¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) aPÀÌªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw)
ªÀÄÆmÁ¨ÉÆÃ« PÀ®ètÚ a£Àß¸Áé«Ä (¥Ë) ¥ÀæPÁ±À
dAiÀÄªÀÄä
®PÀëät ²ªÀgÁd
aPÀÌªÀÄä ZÀ£ÀßªÀÄä
(1£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw ¥ËªÀw) (2£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw)
VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ«
CuÁÚ¨ÉÆÃ« vÀªÀÄä¨ÉÆÃ« vÁAiÀÄªÀÄä
gÁeÁ¨ÉÆÃ« Vj¸Áé«Ä vÀªÀÄä¨ÉÆÃ« aPÀÌªÀÄä UËgÀªÀÄä

¶87

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

The plaintiffs instituted suit for partition and

¶90

separate possession contending that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi-propositus. After his death, the property devolved as the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Kariya Bovi is the son of the second wife of Giriya Bovi, Chikkamma. It is stated by the plaintiffs that Kariya Bovi after the death of Giriya Bovi was managing the family affairs and got the khata changed in his favour behind the back of the plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property.

¶91

Defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement denying the plaint averments except to the limited extent that they admitted that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi and about the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants specifically contended that the suit properties are not the joint family properties of plaintiffs and

¶92

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

defendants. It is stated that during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi about 60 to 70 years ago there was a partition of the family properties and in the said partition the children of first wife (Chinnamma) and the children of second wife (Chikkamma) namely Kariya Bovi and Chinnoda Bovi were allotted separate shares. It is stated that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the defendants9 second wife's branch, Kariya Bovi. It is stated that the plaintiffs branch had been allotted properties which they have already alienated earlier. Further it is stated that after the death of Kariya Bovi, his wife Puttamma and thereafter defendant No. 1 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The revenue record stood in the name of Kariya Bovi and later mutated in the name of defendant No. 1 and therefore the plaintiffs have no right, title or share and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶96

The trial Court framed necessary issues. In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs examined

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶98

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

plaintiff No.1 as PW1, marked documents at Exhibits P1 to P14 and defendants on the other hand examined defendant No. 1 as DW1 and two witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and marked documents at Exhibits D1 to D4.

¶101

The trial Court, on basis of the pleadings, oral

¶102

and documentary evidence, arrived at the conclusion that,

¶103

(i) the defendants have failed to prove prior partition.

¶104

(ii) No documentary evidence was produced and the oral evidence was inconsistent.

¶105

(iii) That the properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi and hence it was the joint family properties.

¶106

(iv) The plaintiffs are entitled for one fourth share.

¶107

Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit in

¶108

part. Aggrieved by which the defendants preferred appeal.

¶109

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

The First Appellate Court, re-appreciated the

¶112

entire evidence and held that defendants failed to establish prior partition as no reliable documentary evidence was produced and that the witnesses DW1 to DW3 admitted in clear terms as to the lack of knowledge.

¶113

The First Appellate Court held that the revenue records produced by the defendants in Exhibit D series does not establish title or partition and that the plaintiffs successfully established that the properties belonged to the common ancestor and that there was no division of properties and the plaintiffs were entitled for share in the suit schedule property, confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, aggrieved by which the defendants are before this Court.

¶114

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contend that both the Courts have totally erred in ignoring the prior partition which was 60 to 70 years ago and failed to appreciate that the suit properties fell to the share of

¶115

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

Kariya Bovi branch and the plaintiffs have already alienated their share. Learned counsel submits that in light of the earlier partition, the suit in the present nature was not maintainable which was totally failed to be appreciated by the Courts below. Learned counsel further contends that the Courts below have relied on insufficient evidence and ignored the mutation entries and revenue records. It is submitted that inclusion of additional properties without proper pleadings renders the decree unsustainable and the judgment and decree is contrary to law and evidence.

¶118

This Court has carefully considered the

¶119

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶120

Regarding substantial question of law No. (i):

¶121

The defendant No. 1 was examined as DW1. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi (propositus ). The plaintiffs and defendants are members of the joint family. It is stated that there was a partition

¶122

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

about 60 to 70 years during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi and in the said partition, the family of the first wife, plaintiffs' branch, and the second wife branch of Kariya Bovi and Chinnoda Bovi were divided. The suit schedule properties fell to the share of Kariya Bovi, who is the son through the second wife. It is further stated that the properties that fell to the share of first wife's branch plaintiffs were subsequently alienated by them.

¶125

DW1 in her cross examination has stated as under:

¶126

<F »AzÉ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è »¸ÉìAiÀiÁzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄªÀjUÉ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÉvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ EgÀ°®è. £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è ¥Á®Ä ¥ÀnÖ ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ zÁR¯É DVgÀ°®è.

¶127

VjAiÀÄ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄªÀjUÉ E§âgÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. DuÁÚ¨ÉÆÃ« ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ E®è. ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½ §gÉ¹zÉÝÃ£É. DzÀgÉ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÀÆ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆÃ« ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀ°®è.

¶128

VjAiÀÄ¨ÉÆÃ« D¹ÛUÀ¼À «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À°èAiÉÄÃ ªÁ¸À«zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ

¶129

12 -

¶130

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

¸Àj. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ d«ÄÃ¤£À G¼ÀÄªÉÄÃ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è.

¶133

ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄªÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàV ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÀÆ ¥Á®Ä EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀuÁ£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÉÄÃ J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä «±Áé¸À¢AzÀ EzÉÝÃªÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.=

¶134

In her cross-examination DW1 made a

¶135

categorical admission that she does not know about the alleged earlier partition and she admits that Giriya Bovi had no other properties apart from the suit properties. She also denies the knowledge about Giriya Bovi having two wives contradicting her own chief examination. She states that she has not seen the two wives and she is unaware as to how the properties were divided and she does not know the shares allotted. She further admits that the plaintiffs are residing in the same village and after the death of Giriya Bovi, her father Kariya Bovi was managing the entire property. She denies the plaintiffs possession or cultivation and knowledge of actual division of properties.

¶136

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

From the above, it is clear that the plea of prior partition is not supported by DW1, where she expresses her lack of knowledge, contradicts the material aspects about two wives, partition and division, and fails to give specific details of partition. Thus, her evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, and insufficient to prove partition.

¶139

DW2 and DW3 who were examined as witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs have stated in their crossexamination as under:

¶140

<ªÁ¢ VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆÃ« D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆmÁÖUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è, ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.120 gÀ°è ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä¤UÉ PÉÆlÖ ¨sÁUÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀæ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛzÀÄÝ, G½zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁgÁåjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¨sÁUÀ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ«UÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.120 gÀ°è EzÀÝ 4 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ EgÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀj «¨sÁUÀzÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 40 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. «¨sÁUÀzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶141

4 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä¤UÉ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 4 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀÇtðªÁV VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆÃ«UÉ ¸ÉÃj\zÀÝ

¶142

14 -

¶143

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

d«ÄÃ£ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä £À£Àß ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÉ ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ. gÀAUÁ¨ÉÆÃ« £À£Àß aPÀÌ¥Àà.=

¶146

<ªÁ¢ VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀ°®è, VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è DzÀ »¸ÉìUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è. VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆÃ«UÉ JµÉÖÃµÀÄÖ JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ J¯ÉèÃ°è EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÁåjUÉ JµÉÖµÀÄÖ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ 1£ÉÃ ªÁ¢, ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä J®ègÀÆ zÁAiÀiÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ. d«ÄÃ£ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½ §gÉ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¸ÀÄªÁUÀ ¥Á®Ä¥ÀnÖ E¢ÝvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Á®Ä¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀÄ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀgÉ DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¸ÁPÀëå £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.=

¶147

DW2 categorically admitted that he has not participated in the alleged partition said to have been taken place during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi and that he does not know the shares allotted to each member except stating generally about the share of Puttama. He further states that land bearing Sy. No. 120 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas belonged to Giriya Bovi and admits that there are

¶148

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

no other properties apart from the said land. He further states that he came to know about the division about 40 years prior, indicating lack of contemporaneous knowledge. No document is produced evidencing such partition. He speaks about his relationship and that Puttama is related to him as the daughter of his brotherin-law's son and Rangabovi is stated to be his younger brother's wife.

¶151

From the evidence stated above, it is clear that the evidence does not disclose specific details of partition. It is based largely on hearsay and does not establish the date of partition, mode of division and identification of shares or properties. This evidence fails to substantiate the plea of prior partition. The oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 lacks consistency and is unsupported by any documentary evidence and is insufficient to discharge the burden of proving prior partition which was cast on the defendants. DW3 is another witness who has been examined on behalf of the defendants to substantiate the

¶152

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

plea of prior partition who has stated in his chief about 60

¶155

to 70 years ago the partition during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi. In his cross examination he categorically admits that he did not participate in the alleged partition and he has not seen Giriya Bovi, the original propositus and that he does not know the extent of properties held by Giriya Bovi, the manner of division and allotment of shares to each member.

¶156

A cumulative reading of DW1 to DW3 reveals that the plea of prior partition is not supported as all the three witnesses admit lack of personal knowledge and unable to share the material particulars such as date of partition, nature of partition, and division of specific property. DW1 contradicts herself in her cross-examination regarding the existence of two wives and knowledge of partition. DW2 and DW3 are not participants to the alleged partition and only on hearsay basis. The reference to the existence of palupatti in their testimony is not supported by pleadings and documents and is contrary to the case of

¶157

17 -

¶158

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶159

HC-KAR

¶160

the defendants themselves, thereby affecting the

¶161

credibility.

¶162

The burden of proof to prove the prior partition lies on the defendants. From the evidence on record, the pleadings are vague and lacking particulars. Oral evidence

¶163

of DW1 to DW3 is inconsistent and there is no contemporaneous documents produced to establish a prior partition. Both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of evidence have concurrently held that the prior partition is not proved, and the properties continue to be the joint family properties. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellants holding that the alleged prior partition is not established either through pleadings or evidence and the suit for partition is therefore not maintainable.

¶164

Substantial Question of Law No. (ii).

¶165

The defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statement denying the plaint averments, except to the

¶166

18 -

¶167

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

limited extent that they admitted the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi. The written statement for ready reference is being culled out as under:

¶170

<4) zÁªÁ PÀArPÉ 4 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ zÁªÁ µÀqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« CªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjvÀÄÛ JA§ CA±À ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸Àj. DzÀgÉÃ F PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ jÃvÁå zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¤dªÀ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« CªÀgÀÄ fÃªÀAvÀ«zÁÝUÀ¯ÉÃ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 60-70 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉAiÉÄÃ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀªÀÄÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÀAvÉ VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« 1£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw a£ÀßªÀÄä£À ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÁzÀ ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw aPÀÌªÀÄä£À ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÁzÀ PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a£ÉÆßÃzÀ¨ÉÆÃ« CªÀjUÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw »gÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ PÀjAiÀÄ¨ÉÆÃ«UÉ CªÀgÀ ¥Á°UÉ §AzÀAvÀºÀ D¹ÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ §AzÀAvÀºÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F »AzÉAiÉÄÃ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶171

¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆß§â ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ aPÀÌªÀÄä(¥ËªÀw) 2£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀ§âgÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶172

PÀArPÉ 5gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ

¶173

19 -

¶174

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

M¥ÀÄàªÀÅ¢¯Áè. PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« §ºÀ¼À »AzÉAiÉÄÃ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ 1978-79gÀ C¸ÀÄªÀiÁj£À°è ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÄÃ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀPÀ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀjAiÀÄ¨ÉÆÃ«AiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÝ PÁgÀt ¥Ëw vÀBSÉÛ jÃvÁå 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÉÆ¼É£ÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ºÀ¼ÉÃPÉÆÃmÉ £ÁqÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀªÀgÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À jÃvÁå vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqÉ¹ 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀB26-12-02 gÀAzÀÄ DzÉÃ±À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶177

¸ÀzÀj PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ jÃvÁå PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAr¯Áè, ¸ÀzÀj PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÄÖ §ºÀ¼À ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆÃ« ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. F PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ µÀjÃPÀÄªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JA§ CA±À ¤dªÀ®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ RqÁRArvÀªÁV ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶178

PÀArPÉ 6 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§ D¹ÛAiÀÄ¯Áè ¸ÀzÀj ¸Àéw£À°è ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F zÁªÁPÁÌVAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀÈ¶×¹PÉÆAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ CdÓ¤UÉ §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶179

20 -

¶180

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

PÀArPÉ 7gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ±ÀÄzÁÝAUÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå®£ÀÄß CzsÀð ¨sÁUÀ »¸Éì PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ PÉÃ½zÁÝgÉ JA§ CA±À ±ÀÄzÁÝAUÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄZÉÆÃzÀå¢AzÀ PÉÆrzÀ zÁªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî. ¥ÀæwªÁzÀÄAiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ GqsÁ¥üÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀwð¹zÀAvÉ JA§ CA±À ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî. ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ »¸Éì §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁV¯Áè. F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ F zÁªÁ vÀA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶183

PÀArPÉ 8 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÆ¢¹zÀ ªÁådå PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî. F zÁªÁPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÁådå PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ ªÁådå PÁgÀtªÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî.

¶184

ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ PÉÆÃmïð ¦sÃdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À jÃvÁå ¸Àj¬Ä¯Áè.

¶185

ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ »¸Éì ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÀ®è. CªÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ¤ß¸À®Ä PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå CªÀPÁ±À EgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ vÀA¢gÀÄªÀ zÁªÁªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À RdÄð¸À»vÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ zÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ ¥Áæyð¸À¯ÁVzÉ.=

¶186

21 -

¶187

NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

The defendants contended that the suit

¶190

properties are not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, and during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi about 60 to 70 years ago there was a partition of the family properties and in the said property the first wife Chinnamma, children of first wife Chinnamma and the children of second wife Chikkamma, namely Kariya Bovi and Chinnoda Bovi were allotted shares. The entire written statement does not state regarding the existence of any other joint family property, omission of the properties from the suit and about the non-joinder of necessary parties. The defence in the written statement is entirely confined only to the plea of prior partition and exclusive title. The trial Court while framing the issues has framed issues regarding (i) prior partition. (ii) entitlement of plaintiffs and nature of property. However, no issue is framed on partial partition or non-joinder of parties and there is no specific pleading to that effect in the written statement. The plea that the suit is bad for non-inclusion

¶191

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010

¶192

HC-KAR

¶193

<of all properties and all parties=, cannot be entertained because there is no pleadings exist in the written statement and no issue has been framed by the trial Court and no evidence was led to establish the existence of other properties. It is well settled that a party cannot seek

¶194

a new plea for the first time in the second appeal, particularly when it is a mixed question of fact and law, and requires evidence. Thus, the contention that <all properties and all parties are not followed= by the Courts below is not available to the appellants and cannot be raised at the stage of second appeal. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the appellants.

¶195