- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.414 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. M G NAGARAJ S/O M G SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 2. M G SRINIVASA S/O M G SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 3. M G RAVIKUMAR S/O M G SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 4. M G SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O M G CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH R NELKUDURI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 AND: 1. SMT. SANNABASAMMA D/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA, W/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 JAYAPPA, S/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, MOTHER – SMT. SANNABSAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 2. SMT. VISHALA W/O MAHESHWARAPPA, D/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, MOTHER – SMT. SANNABSAMMA, R/O CHIKKA THOGALERE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 3. SMT. SHILPA D/O M G THIMMESHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O BELAVANUR VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 4. SMT. REKHA W/O M G SHRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 5. NAVEEN S/O M G SHRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 6. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O AGASANAKATTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 7. M V VENKATESH S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O MADALUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 8. M V VISHWANATH S/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O VISHWABANDHU COMMUNICATION, ASHOKA ROAD, JAYADEVA CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE – 577 001 9. SMT. S N GEETHA W/O GANGADHARAPPA K M, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O MANDALUR VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 001 10. SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O NEAR HAGEDIBBA CIRCLE, DAVANGERE – 577 001 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.120/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2021 passed in R.A.No.120/2017 by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.31/2013 by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant appearing for the appellants. 3. This matter is listed for admission. There is a concurrent finding when the suit was filed for the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly, document of Ex.D1 comes to the conclusion that there was a partition deed of the year 1975 and the same was not challenged and suit was also filed for the relief of partition in the year 2013 that is after the lapse of more than 30 years and the Trial Court also discussed in detail the admission on the part of PW1 in the cross-examination which was also extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court in paragraph 20 onwards and detailed order was passed considering the arguments in paragraph 21 of its judgment and also taken note of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 relationship between the parties and the chief evidence as well as the admission given by PW1 also extracted in page No.31 of its judgment so also discussed in detail regarding limitation invoking Section 110 of Limitation Act and also a detailed discussion was made in paragraph 22. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record on both question of facts and question of law, in detail discussed the facts in paragraphs 28 to 31 and documentary evidence of Ex.D1 also taken note of since defendant Nos.1 to 6 got divided the family properties which were fallen under Ex.D1 and also taken note of the fact that as per the partition deed, the khatha was mutated in the name of Doddabasamma and Sannabasamma vide Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 and subsequent to the document of partition, there was a division in the family of defendant Nos.1 to 6 and same was appreciated by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 32. In paragraph 35 also taken note of the fact that the plaintiffs have not challenged the partition deed dated 04.02.1975 so far, so the document at Ex.D1 came into existence prior to 30 years from the date of filing of the suit and also taken note of possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as admitted by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 PW1 in the cross-examination and same is also discussed in paragraph 36 and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the marriage of Sannabasamma with Chidanandappa had taken place prior to 1956 and hence, defendant Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for their share in the suit schedule properties. Moreover, Chidanandappa himself has settled the properties under registered partition deed since the plaintiffs have not questioned the partition deed, they cannot claim that the suit schedule properties are available for partition and detailed reasoning was given by the First Appellate Court. 4. Once the First Appellate Court also discussed both question of fact and question of law, the very contention of the appellants’ counsel that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record in a proper perspective and dismissal of the suit without considering the recitals of Ex.P5 and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court fail to consider the material on record with regard to the limitation is concerned cannot be accepted. The counsel would contend that the issue was not framed with regard to the limitation is concerned and the same - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18643 RSA No. 414 of 2022 cannot be a ground to consider the matter in a second appeal when both the question of fact and law was considered by both the Courts in a proper perspective. Hence, the substantive questions of law framed by the appellants’ counsel do not requires consideration in the second appeal and there is no any substantive question of law to admit the appeal. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN