- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1851 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. BHAGYAMMA W/O JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A BELLUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571418. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. RANGAMMA D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. GOWRI D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. JAVARAIAH S/O SANNAKULLA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BELLUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571418. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 5. JAVARAMMA D/O SANNAKULLA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT AMRUTHURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572111. 6. JAYARATHNAMMA C/O KEMPAIAH D/O SANNAKULLA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.1038 10TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-570057. 7. PUTTARANGAMMA W/O MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT HESARUGATTA VILLAGE T.B.ANNAMMA THOTA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560088. 8. RANGAMMA W/O SHANKAR D/O LATE SANNAKULLA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 9. RAMACHANDRA S/O DASAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 10. LAKSHMAMMA W/O KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 11. GOVINDAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 12. SUBRAMANI AGEDA BOUT 66 YEARS BEHIND HARIJAN COLONY RESPONDENTS NO.9 50 12 ARE R/AT BELLUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571418. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 AND R8 TO R12 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025; NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.04.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.70/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA. 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 and I have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 2. The present second appeal is filed by defendant No.10 questioning grant of decree in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule property. In the suit, it is contended that the property is her self-acquired property purchased out of her own income and out of her own savings, she had purchased by paying consideration of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The Trial Court also framed an issue with regard to the very claim made by defendant No.10 and also in view of defence which was taken, additional issue was framed whether defendant No.10 proves that suit item No.3 is her stridhana property. 4. The defendant No.10 examined herself as D.W.3, wherein she deposed before the Court that she had purchased the property out of her own savings. When she was subjected to cross-examination, answers are elicited that there were 3 daughters and 4 brothers to her parents and also categorically admits that her father was doing coolie work and father had spent money for performing marriage of 3 daughters. It is also contended that the property was purchased in the year 1976, but, in order to substantiate that she has saved the money and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 used the same, nothing is placed on record. Even for having pledged the gold ornaments also, since she claims that she had utilized the said amount for purchase of the property, nothing is placed on record. It is also her claim that she has saved some money by doing coolie work and she had saved whatever the amount her father had given and purchased the property. Distinct defences were also taken during the course of cross- examination. Hence, the Trial Court did not accept the defence of D.W.3. 5. Though D.W.4 is also examined in support of her case, it is also elicited from the mouth of D.W.4 also that all the children were depending on the income of her parents and when the answer was elicited from the mouth of D.W.4 also, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that same has not been proved. Even the First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, in paragraph No.21 discussed the same, since she has claimed that she has purchased the property i.e., item No.3 from defendant No.1 out of her father's income, but during the course of cross-examination, she deposed that about 30 years ago, she got married to defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 No.1 and also taken note of the fact that his father was having 4 sons and 3 daughters and that her father died and only mother was alive and her brothers and sisters are also married. But, claims that her father was doing coolie work and having small piece of land measuring 6 guntas and there cannot be any income from the said land and they have raised coconut trees in the said land. When such admission was taken note of, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in detail discussed the same and also spending the amount of Rs.2,000/- for purchasing the property to the extent of 19 guntas which is not substantiated by the contention of the appellant. It is also taken note that at the time of purchase of item No.3 of the schedule property, her father has not given any amount to her and her father himself purchased item No.3. But, she has not produced any piece of document, to prove that she was having income to purchase the property and in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.21 and 22 and comes to the conclusion that, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the very contention of defendant No.10 cannot be accepted. Being aggrieved by the finding of Trial Court as well as the First - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this court. 6. The learned counsel appearing the appellant would vehemently contend that though defendant No.10 adduced the evidence that item No.3 of schedule property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.10 which was purchased out of her income obtained from her father and also by pledging her ornaments, both the Courts have not accepted the same and contend that ought to have examined the oral evidence placed on record by the appellant. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law that both the Courts have committed an error and there is perversity in the finding. The counsel also would repeat the grounds which have been urged in the second appeal and contend that both Courts have committed an error in not considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that, in order to substantiate the claim of defendant No.10 that item No.3 is the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 self-acquired property, nothing is placed on record. Both the Courts in detail discussed while considering the material on record whether the property is purchased out of her self-earned money and whether she had taken money from her father and the said fact is also not substantiated. Hence, no grounds to admit and frame substantial question of law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is not in dispute that property was purchased in the name of defendant No.10 in the year 1976 and the sale deed is also placed on record. It is also important to note that defendant No.1, who is the husband of defendant No.10 is the Kartha of the family is also not in dispute. It is also important to note that when D.W.3 categorically admits that her parents were having 7 children and father used to maintain the family out of the income from his coolie work and no other source of income to the father also to give money to the daughter. The admission on the part of D.W.4 is also very clear that family ground was also spoken by D.W.4. When such admissions are elicited during the course of cross- examination of D.W.3, both - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 the Courts comes to the conclusion that distinct defences were taken during the course of evidence as well as during the course of cross-examination and when the defence was taken that by pledging her gold ornaments, she has purchased the property, the same is also not supported by any documentary proof, but only claims that property stands in her name and hence, claimed the same as stridhana property and for having the same as stridhana property also, nothing is placed on record and for having given money to purchase the property as stridhana also, nothing is placed on record, but her only contention is that whatever the amount she has saved from doing coolie work, she had purchased the property i.e., the amount of Rs.2,000/- in the year 1976. Hence, both the Courts taken note that Rs.2,000/- amount in the year 1976 is not a reasonable amount and also with regard to saving of that much of amount, nothing is placed on record. Hence, not accepted the case of defendant No.10. 9. Having considered the grounds which have been urged, the very contention that both the Courts have committed an error and it amounts to perversity cannot be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25796 RSA No. 1851 of 2021 accepted and both the Courts have taken note of admission that her parents were having 7 children and father was depending on the income of his coolie work for maintaining the family and also to perform the marriage of 3 daughters. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law. Even the First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.21 to 23 and there is no perversity in the findings of both the Courts and both the Courts have taken note of question of fact and question of law and no grounds to admit and frame substantial question of law. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54