- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21277 RSA No. 158 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.158 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KANAKAMMA W/O SRIMAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA DODDI CHINNAIAHNA PALYA JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. KUMARI RADHA D/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KRISHNADODDI CHINNAIAHNA PALYA JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVAS MAJOR Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21277 RSA No. 158 of 2023 4. MASTER KUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 5. KUMARI ASHA D/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF ADOOR VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DSITRICT – 562 106. 6. SMT. MARAKKA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHINNAIAHNA PALYA JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 572 106. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5111/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIO SJUDGE, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21277 RSA No. 158 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.Nos.1/2023, since there was delay of 232 days in filing the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits also since there is a concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in rejecting the suit for partition and confirming the same by the First Appellate Court. 3. The main case of the plaintiff is that suit schedule property is an ancestral property and she is having 1/6th share over the suit schedule property and also contend that sale deed executed by her father is not valid. Hence, she is entitled for a share. 4. The defendant Nos.6 and 7 have purchased this property in the year 2001 and they have filed the written statement contending that they have purchased the property and plaintiff is not having any right over the suit schedule property and the same cannot be questioned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21277 RSA No. 158 of 2023 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the material on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the property was purchased by the grand-father and in order to show that the property is an ancestral property, no such document is placed on record and father had sold the property for sale consideration in favour of defendant Nos.6 and 7 and comes to the conclusion that in order to prove that property is an ancestral property, not placed any document and dismissed the suit. 6. The First Appellate Court has also reconsidered the material on record and comes to the conclusion that Abbaiah is having two sons i.e., father of the plaintiff-Jayaramappa and uncle, Srinivasa and on account of death of their father, both of them inherited the property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and in order to invoke Section 6, there is no material before the Court that property is an ancestral property. When the sale was made by the father, plaintiff has no locus to challenge the same, as the same is not an ancestral property and the First Appellate Court also concurred the judgment of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21277 RSA No. 158 of 2023 7. Having considered the grounds urged in the second appeal that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the material on record. The very contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that property already been sold and the same has not been challenged cannot be ground. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and considering the material on record, it is not in dispute that property originally belongs to Abbaiah and he passed away and immediately his two sons have inherited the property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and also the fact that property was sold in the year 2001 and present suit is filed in the year 2009 seeking the relief of partition contending that it is an ancestral property. In order to prove the factum that it is an ancestral property, no document is placed on record. The Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Section 8 attracts not Section 6. When such finding is given by the Trial Court, I do not find any error in dismissing the suit and confirming the same by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this second appeal. In the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21277 RSA No. 158 of 2023 absence of any substantive question of law, question of admitting to frame the substantive question of law does not arise. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST, RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51