- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.844 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHYLAJA W/O LATE SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. PAWAN @ PAVAN SAGAR S S/O LATE SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3. SMT. POOJA D/O LATE SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BEHIND D C COMPOUND NEAR MANDRA SCHOOL BASAVANAGUDI SHIVAMOGGA CITY – 77201 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GANGADHARAPPA A V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUVARNA W/O MANJAPAP AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HOUSE HOLD WORK Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 RESIDENT OF BEDARA HOSAHALLI BULLAPURA POST SHIVAMOGGA TLAUK AND DISTRICT 577216 2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAPPA REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. CHANDRAMATHI W/O SREENIVASA D/O THIMMAPAP AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SMT. VASUMATHI W/O ASHOK D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. SMT. RAMYA W/O PRAVEEN D./O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5. MISS RASHMI D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 6. SMT. RANJITHA W/O CHIRANJEEVI D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 7. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.2 TO 7 ARE R/AT KASHIPURA RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, KALLAHALLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 NEAR TANK BUND SHIVAMOGGA CITY – 577204 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.47/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC. 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 appearing for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession by one of the daughters and another daughter remained exparte before both the Courts. The claim made in the suit is that the suit schedule property belongs to her father and mother by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 name Hulugappa and Durgamma and along with her brother Sridhara, constituted a Hindu undivided joint family consisting of joint family suit schedule property and after the death of her parents, she is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule property. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending the Hulugappa in order to perform the marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.2, sold 3.18 acres of land in Sy.No.23 of Hosakote village in favour of the purchaser in the year 1992 for meager sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and also borrowed hand loan for the marriage expenses and after his death, his son Sridhara repaid the loan out of his salary and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. The defendants in order to defend their claim, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1 and two witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D10. The Trial Court having - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 considered the case of the plaintiff and also the defendants and also on perusal of the material on record comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to their parents i.e., Hulugappa and Durgamma and also taken note of the evidence of DW2 which was not believed since DW2 has not at all stated that how much loan was borrowed by Hulugappa and what was the sale consideration and nothing has been discloses and also taken note of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act it held that whenever a document is reduced in the form of writing then that document is alone is admissible in evidence and no other evidence can be given with respect to the contents of those documents and also discussed in detail that even if the property is sold for clearing the debt, then also it amounts to performance of an obligation and the same is sold for legal necessity and comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to the family and the very contention of the defendants that he had cleared the loan is not been proved and regarding claim is concerned with regard to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, in detail discussed and comes to the conclusion that they are equally entitled for the share and decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.47/2022. The First Appellate Court having reconsidered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as both oral and documentary evidence placed on record formulated the point that whether the defendant No.1 proved that the other joint family properties were sold for meeting the marriage expenses of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, due to which, plaintiff and defendant No.2 have no right to claim share over the suit schedule property and whether it requires interference of the court. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record with regard to 1/3rd share is concerned, in paragraph 17, it is held that there is no dispute regarding relationship between the plaintiff and defendants and also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 taken note of the fact that the suit schedule properties were acquired by Hulugappa from his father and they are their joint family properties. Defendant No.1 do not asserts that the suit schedule property as the self acquired property. However, only contention taken up by defendant No.1 is that since other joint family properties were sold for meeting the marriage expenses of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, they have no right to claim share over the suit schedule property. 4. The First Appellate Court also discussed the evidence of DW1 and DW2 as well as PW1 and comes to the conclusion that the marriage of defendant No.2 was during the year 1979, whereas, marriage of the plaintiff was during the year 1985. The sale of property by Durgamma and Sridhara was subsequent to 1992. When there was huge gap between the date of marriage and sale transaction, one has to doubt the sale of property for meeting the marriage expenses and taken note of this aspect into consideration in paragraphs 21 and 22 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 made an observation that the marriage was taken place long back and also discussed in detail that no registered instrument has been obtained either from the plaintiff or from defendant No.2 for relinquishing their right over the suit schedule property while selling the other properties. The First Appellate Court also considered the discussion made by the Trial Court in paragraph 23 and comes to the conclusion that when the property has been sold for family necessities, it is binding on all the sharers. Hence, it cannot be a ground to say that in respect of the other properties, the co-parceners have no right to claim the share. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that when the father died in the year 1992, if the property is divided between the father and son and father had got half share, there would be a notional partition and son as well as the daughters are equally - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 entitled for share hence, this Court has to frame substantive questions of law. The counsel also would vehemently contend that allotting equal share to the plaintiff without noticing the fact that some portions of the family property was sold during lifetime of the father for legal necessities such as meeting the marriage expenses of daughters is erroneous finding and whether both the Courts are justified in not noticing that the father died on 28.10.1992, the daughters were married long before and the coparcenery property came to the hands of husband of appellant No.1 as sole surviving coparcener .. 6. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the reasoning of the Trial Court and also on perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and both the Courts have taken note of the fact that property was sold subsequent to the marriage i.e., marriage was taken place in the year 1979 and 1985 for the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and even though defence was taken that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 the property was sold for the marriage of both the daughters, both the Courts not accepted the contention and fact finding was given by both the Courts that the same cannot be accepted. Even the First Appellate Court also reassessed the material on record and considered the reasoning of the Trial Court and in paragraph 23 taken note of Mulla’s Hindu Law wherein it is held that marriage expenses of a male co-parceners and daughters of co- parceners is for a family necessity. Even if the property has been sold for meeting the marriage expenses of the daughter, it has to be held that it is sold for family necessity. When the property has been sold for family necessities, it is binding on all the sharers. Hence, it cannot be a ground to say that in respect of the other properties, the co-parceners have no right to claim share. In the case on hand, the property was sold subsequent to the marriage of the daughters and hence, equal share has been given in the remaining properties which are available in the family. When such reasoning is given by both the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21004 RSA No. 844 of 2024 Courts, the very contention is that awarding of 1/3rd share is erroneous is cannot be accepted. But the fact that both the father and mother died in the year 1992 and 1993 respectively and the same is not in dispute and the property is belongs to the family is also not in dispute. When such being the case, the daughters and also a son are entitled for equal share. Hence, contention of the appellants counsel cannot be accepted. Thus, I do not find any grounds to frame substantive questions of law and admit the appeal. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN