- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.15 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE NARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 2. SRI PRAKASH M.N. S/O. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 3. SMT. VIJIYAMMA D/O. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT MASTHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH C.V., ADVOCATE, FOR SRI SHIVAKUMAR V.) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI C. SHIVARAM REDDY S/O. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT MASTHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 3. SRI SRINIVAS K.N. S/O. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT MASTHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NARAJJI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2) * * * THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI, RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5-10-2018 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.95 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of the judgment and decree dated 5-10-2018 passed in Original Suit No.95 of 2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikkaballapura. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- One Chikkanarasimaiah acquired several properties out of his own earnings and also through his ancestral properties. Chikkanarasimaiah had two wives, namely Narasamma, the first wife, and Lakshmamma, the second wife. Through Narasamma (first wife), Chikkanarasimaiah has a daughter by name Lakshmamma (plaintiff No.1). Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter, respectively of plaintiff No.1. Through Lakshmamma (second wife), Chikkanarasimaiah has a daughter by name Parvathamma (defendant No.1) and a son by name - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 C. Shivaram Reddy (defendant No.2). The plaintiffs and the defendants stated to be joint family members and there was no partition between the family members. After the death of Chikkanarasimaiah, defendant No.2 transferred all revenue entries pertaining to the suit schedule properties to his name by suppressing the names of the plaintiffs. Hence, prior to institution of the suit, the plaintiffs approached the defendants and requested them to make partition in the suit schedule properties, but the defendants denied the shares of the plaintiffs. Further, defendant No.2 falsely executed the registered release deed in respect of the suit schedule properties by plaintiff No.1. The act of defendant No.2 is fraudulent in nature and hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. 5. The defendants contested the suit. They filed written statement by denying the rights and shares as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendants contended that plaintiff No.1-Lakshmamma executed registered release - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 deed dated 8-8-2013 in favour of defendant No.2 by relinquishing her right in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, her children cannot claim any rights or shares in the suit schedule properties, as their claim is hit by principle of estoppel and the registered release deed executed by plaintiff No.1 shall bind upon plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that 2nd defendant has created release deed dated 08.08.2013? 3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by law of limitation? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession? If so, to what extent? 5) What order or decree? 7. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2- Prakash M. N. was examined as PW1 and he relied upon in all ten documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the defendants, none was examined, but got marked Ex.D1-cash release deed dated 8-8-2013. 8. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 to 4 in the 'Negative' and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties, and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. 10. Sri. Manjunath C.V. learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, has contended that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is totally arbitrary and not on facts and evidence. The trial Court came to the wrong conclusion that there is no substantial piece of evidence to conclude that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, despite there is clear recital in Ex.P10-cash release deed to the effect that, there exists joint family consisting of plaintiff No.1 and the defendants and after the demise of Chikkanarasimaiah in the year 2006, plaintiff No.1 and the defendants were enjoying schedule properties jointly. Hence, release deed is enough to arrive at the conclusion that plaintiff No.1 and the defendants are joint family members. He further contended that the trial Court has wrongly observed that, the plaintiffs should have produced proper documents to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 prove their contention that, Ex.P10-cash release deed is a fraudulent one, which was obtained by defendant No.2 by using undue influence and false information. Further, the documents produced by the plaintiffs i.e., Exs.P1 to P9- RTC extracts clearly reflects that entries were mutated from the name of Chikkanarasimaiah to the name of defendant No.2 on inheritance. Therefore, it is for defendant No.2 to prove his contention that defendant No.1 got executed release deed by paying Rs.1.00 lakh to plaintiff No.1. Further, the trial Court failed to apply its mind insofar as Ex.D1-cash release deed is concerned. There is no dispute as to the signature of plaintiff No.1 on the release deed, but the dispute is regarding the manner in which, it was obtained by defendant No.2 and no amount has been received by plaintiff No.1. Thus, the burden is on defendant No.2 to prove this aspect. However, the trial Court misconstrued the fact, issues and evidence and thus, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 11. Sri Narajji Deepak, learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2, has contended that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and the suit was barred by law of limitation. Further, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant No.2 has created Ex.P10-cash release deed dated 8-8-2013 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which is based on pleadings, issues and evidence led by the parties and hence, no interference is called for in that regard. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard, perused the records and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for our consideration are: I. Whether the plaintiffs proved that themselves and defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 II. Whether defendant No.2 proved that plaintiff No.1 executed release deed dated 8-8-2013 by relinquishing her rights in favour of defendant No.2. Thus, the suit is not maintainable? III. What order or decree? Re: point Nos.I and II 13. As point Nos.I and II are inter-linked with each other, we have taken them for discussion at one stretch. 14. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. Chikkanarasimaiah was the original propositus. He had two wives, namely Narasamma (first wife) and Lakshmamma (second wife). Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Narasamma (first wife) and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the children of plaintiff No.1. So also, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are daughter and son, respectively of Lakshmamma (second wife). It is the contention of the plaintiffs that defendant No.2 fraudulently obtained Ex.P10-cash release deed by plaintiff No.1. On the other hand, defendant No.2 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 has taken up the contention that, since defendant No.1 relinquished her rights under Ex.P10, the plaintiffs are now estopped from taking such contention and the suit of the plaintiffs is stated to be barred by limitation. 15. In support of the claim of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2-Prakash M. N. was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and in support of his contention, he relied on Exs.P1 to P9-RTC extracts in respect of suit schedule properties, wherein the name of defendant No.2 is shown at Column Nos.9 and 12. Ex.P10 is the registered release deed dated 8-8-2013 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule properties. In the cross-examination, it is admitted that Late Chikkanarasimaiah, during his lifetime, has acquired several schedule properties out of his earnings and also through ancestral properties. PW1 further admitted that Ex.D1-cash release deed executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, which clearly - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 shows that plaintiff No.1-Lakshmamma, daughter of first wife, and defendant No.1-Parvathamma, daughter of second wife, have released their rights in the suit schedule properties and received a considerable amount of Rs.1.00 lakh each. Hence, the signature of plaintiff No.1 on Ex.D1-cash release deed and relinquishment made by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is admitted. More importantly, plaintiff No.1 has not entered the witness box to prove that defendant No.2 has created Ex.D1-cash release deed dated 8-8-2013 and used it as genuine document. No complaint has been lodged by her against defendant No.2 alleging any fraud and under influence, against defendant No.2. Once plaintiff No.1 relinquished her rights by registered instrument, she further cannot claim partition in respect of same schedule properties. Hence, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, being the children of plaintiff No.1, cannot maintain the suit as they are claiming their rights through plaintiff No.1 (mother). Since the plaintiffs prove the existence of joint family status amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 fact that plaintiff No.1 relinquished her right in favour of defendant No.2 by registered instrument, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Thus, no interference is called for in that regard. Hence, we answer point No.I in the 'Negative' and point No.II in the 'Affirmative'. Point No.III 16. In view of the discussion made at point Nos.I and II, we proceed to pass the following O R D E R i. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 5-10-2018 passed in Original Suit No.95 of 2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikkaballapura, is hereby confirmed. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4462-DB RFA No. 15 of 2019 iii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN (paragraph Nos.1 to 10) KVK (paragraph Nos.11 to 16) List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9