- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: DHANALAKSHMAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KOLEMENAHALLI VILLAGE, POSHETTIHALLI POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK 561208 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/OF LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KOLIMENAHALLI VILLAGE, POSHETTIHALLI POST., NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208 3. SRI. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 4. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 5. SRI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 6. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.3,4,5 AND 6 ARE R/AT KOLIMENAHALLI VILLAGE, POSHETTIHALLI POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 561208 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRI K., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.71/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.19/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2024, passed in R.A.No.71/2024 by the learned I Additional - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, and the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.19/ 2020 dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was defendant No.7, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and other respondents were the other defendants. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession, contending that one Marreppa was a propositus of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 6. The plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 6 are the children of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 is the son of Mareppa. The defendant No.1's wife died long back. Defendant No.7 is the wife of defendant No.5. It is contended that all the suit schedule properties are the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died, leaving behind the legal heirs, and his legal heirs are the plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 6. The plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 6 are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 6. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, but defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession, Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. In pursuance of summons, the defendants tendered their appearance through their respective counsels. During the pendency of suit, defendant No.1 died and his legal heirs are on record. Defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 jointly filed a written statement and defendant No.4 and defendant No.7 filed written statement separately. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 specifically contended that there is no partition between the members of the family. Hence, prays for allotment of her share and to decree the suit. 3.2. Defendants No.1 and 5, filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit. It is contended that the suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties are the self-acquired properties of Marreppa and item No. 7 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 inherited the self-acquired properties of Marreppa, and those properties shall be treated as individual properties of defendant No.1 and his children has no right in those properties. They contended that Defendants Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6 partitioned suit item Nos. 1 to 6 through a registered partition deed dated 09.01.2020. Accordingly, defendants Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are in exclusive, continuous and peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Defendant No.1 performed the marriages of the plaintiff and Defendant No.4 about 25 years back by presenting gold and other - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 valuable articles and bearing the marriage expenses. Defendants Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6 invested hard-earned money to the suit properties. The plaintiff filed the suit at the instigation of a person who was inimical towards defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the village. The plaintiff filed the suit suppressing the material facts. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.3. Defendants No.2 and 3, have not filed a written statement. After the amendment to the plaint, defendants Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed an additional written statement, contending that defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 constructed a residential house in the suit properties out of their own earnings and the suit properties are standing in their name. Further, they contended that in the oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendants allotted a house No.7/1, situated at Kollumenahalli village to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got the share from the family of her husband and settled in her life, and the defendants Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were doing agricultural work in the suit - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 properties and earning their butter to maintain their daily food. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.4. Defendant No.7 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that suit item No.18 is the self-acquired property and the said property has been exclusively allotted to her under the scheme in the Housing Board. She constructed a house on the said property and residing therein; the plaintiff or their ancestors do not have any right in suit item No.18 and prays to dismiss the suit. 3.5. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and Additional issues. 3.6. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. On the other hand, defendant No.5 examined himself as DW.1, defendant No.7 was examined - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 as DW.5. Defendants Nos.2 and 4 examined as DWs.3 and 4, one witness examined as DW.2 and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial court, on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the plaintiff’s suit with costs. 3.7. Defendants Nos.2, 3, 5 to 7, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.19/2020, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.71/2024 on the file of learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge Chikkaballapur. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 19/12/2024. Defendants No. 2, 3, 5 to 7, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, have filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 7. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 7 submits that originally, the suit properties belonged to the Marreppa; after his demise, defendant No.1 succeeded the suit properties, the suit properties are the self- acquired properties of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has no right to claim the share in the suit properties. Both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on records. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the records, and they are liable to be set aside. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 7. 7. It is not disputed that originally, the suit properties belonged to the propositus Marreppa. He died intestate, leaving behind defendant No.1. The suit properties devolved upon defendant No.1. There is no - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 dispute regarding the nature of suit schedule properties and the relationship between the parties to the suit. The defendants contended that there was an oral partition amongst Defendants No.1 to 3, 5 and 6. Dw.1, during the course of cross-examination, admitted that the plaintiff is not a party to the registered partition deed. The plaintiff has produced a registered partition deed dated 09/01/2020 effected amongst defendants No.1 to 3, 5 and 6, which is marked as Ex.P9. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a party to the registered partition deed; the said partition deed is not binding on the plaintiff. Even if the defense of the defendants is accepted that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 passed away during the pendency of the suit. The court can take judicial note of subsequent events and mould a relief. Defendant No.1 died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 6, and they have succeeded to the estate of defendant No.1.The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1, and they are - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 the members of the Hindu Joint Family, and no partition is effected. The contesting defendants have taken a contradictory stand. The contesting defendants have contended that there was a registered partition deed between them as per EX.P9. At another stretch, in an additional written statement, the defendants have contended there is an oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. 8. To substantiate the same, nothing worth being placed on record to say alleged oral partition was acted upon. The trial Court, based on the entire records, held that the plaintiff has proved that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, but the defendants have failed to prove that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is self- acquired property of defendant No.1, item Nos. 1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties are individual properties of defendant No.1 and the defendants failed to prove that already there was an oral partition between the plaintiff - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 and the defendants and same is acted upon. The trial court decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court, on re- assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, has affirmed the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial court. The Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts holding that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1; she is a coparcener as per section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, and she is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. 9. Both Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10566 RSA No. 203 of 2025 ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE sks