- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.509 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT VADAKUNTE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI CHENNAPPA, S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. LAKASHAMMA, W/O CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 3. SMT. BHYAGYAMMA, D/O CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 4. SRI GOVINDA RAJU, S/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 5. SMT. LATHA, D/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT VADAKUNTE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SMT. D. GANGAMMA, W/O ARALUMALLIGAIAH, D/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 7. SRI. D. CHIKAVENKATIAH, S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. APPELLANT NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT VADAKUNTE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, D/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH. DEFENDANT No.3 WAS DEAD WHEN RA WAS PENDING AND SHE HAS NO LRS. HENCE SHE WAS NOT MADE PARTY. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. D. SUBBARAYAPPA, S/O DODDANNA @ DODDAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. LAKSHAMMA, W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. SRI. KRISHNA S, S/O LATE SUBBARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 3. SRI. DEVARAJA S, S/O LATE SUBBARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.120, 11TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021. NOW RESIDING AT NO.149, ‘NESARA’, 2ND CROSS, ITI LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI 1ST STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560039. 4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR’ NADAKACHERI, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SRI. D .VENKATANARASAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 6. SMT. PRAMILA, DO LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 7. SRI. NARASIMAIAH MURTHY, S/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 8. SMT. NALINA, W/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 9. SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE VENKATANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1703/44, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 1ST MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560021. 10. SRI VAKKODAPPA, S/O DODDANNA @ DODAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT VADKUNTE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.15/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.348/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMAGALA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of partition contending that the suit schedule properties are all the joint family properties. The respondent/defendant No.1 took the specific defence in the written statement that he was working and separately earning from 1963 onwards, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 earlier in the Railway Department and thereafter he joined the GKW Factory. It is contended that when he was working, he met with an accident and lost his left eye on 16.11.1972 and he was getting the disability pension. In support of his contentions, he placed on record the document of Ex.D.15 passbook of Bank of Maharashtra for having the amount to purchase the property and produced Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 30.05.1983 and contend that the said property is his self-acquired property. 3. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record and also the admission on the part of P.W.1 in the cross-examination, extracted the same in paragraph No.19, wherein he has categorically admitted that till the death of the father, the father was the kartha of the family. The contention was also taken that defendant No.1 was the kartha of the family. The fact that the father died in the year 1993 and the property was purchased in the year 1983 in the name of defendant No.1 is not in dispute. The Trial Court having considered the document of Ex.D.15 and both oral and documentary evidence placed on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 record and admission on the part of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 2 are the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and granted the relief in respect of item Nos.3 to 9 of the suit schedule properties and declined to grant relief in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties by answering issue No.6 in the affirmative that the same is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15/2018. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 as the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly taken note of the document of Ex.D.1 sale deed dated 30.05.1983, which was purchased by defendant No.1 out of his self-earning. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that he went out of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 family in the year 1963 on account of his employment and acquired the property in the year 1983. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 himself in the cross-examination that the father was the kartha of the family till his death. The fact that the father died in the year 1993 is not in dispute. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record, in paragraph No.49 taken note of the documents of Exs.D.22 to 28, which evidence the fact that defendant No.1 was an employee, Exs.D.31 and 32 including his terminal benefits from employment, Ex.D.15 pass book, which according to defendant No.1 evidence the salary which he was receiving as on the date of acquiring the property in terms of Ex.D.1 so as to shift the onus upon the claim made by the plaintiff. Though it is contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was the kartha of the family, the First Appellate Court taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 that the father was the kartha of the family till his death and hence not accepted the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was the kartha and he had purchased the property in his name - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 and comes to the conclusion that the property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that defendant No.1 is not the kartha of the family even prior and subsequent to the death of the propositus Doddaiah. The First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 2 are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and both the Courts have not considered the material available on record in proper perspective and hence it requires interference of this Court and prays this Court to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the material available on record, both the Courts have taken note of Ex.D.15 pass - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 book of Bank of Maharashtra as well as Ex.D.22 ID card, Ex.D.23 salary certificate, Ex.D.24 ID card and Ex.D.25 terminal benefits as well as the contents of the document of Ex.D.1 sale deed and the sale deed is in the name of defendant No.1. Apart from that, both the Courts have taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 himself that the father was the kartha of the family till his death and the fact that the father died in the year 1993 is not in dispute and item Nos.1 and 2 were purchased in the year 1983. When such admission was given by P.W.1 himself, both the Courts having taken note of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that item Nos.1 and 2 are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. Both oral and documentary evidence placed on record supports the case of defendant No.1 and both the Courts rightly comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 has proved that item Nos.1 and 2 are his self-acquired properties. When such being the case and when the factual material was taken note of and question of law also taken note of and considered by the First Appellate Court, I do - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22256 RSA No. 509 of 2022 not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. Hence, no ground to admit the appeal. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52