- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2194 OF 2016 (PAR) BETWEEN: MANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS. ANNAPPA @MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 2ND CROSS, HALUVAGILU ROAD, CHIKKAMANDIGANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHIKKAMMA @ AMMAIAH, W/O LATE MALLESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DEVI NILAYA, NEAR MUNISHWARA TEMPLE, HALUVAGILU ROAD, CHIKKAMANDIGANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201. 2. MANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS. 2(a) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, W/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 2(b) KUM.GEETHA, D/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2(c) KUM.LATHA, W/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 3. BASAVARAJU, S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. K.R.RAMESH, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O 2ND CROSS, HALUVAGILU ROAD, CHIKKAMANDIGANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201. 5. VENKATARAMU @ CHIKKAMANDIGANAHALLI VENKATARAMU, S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O THATTEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M NAGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI N.M BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; R-2 (a to c), R-3 & R-4 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 01.08.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 1/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.116/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2016 in R.A.No.1/2013 by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2012, passed in O.S.No.116/2007 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are other legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 and respondent No.5 is defendant No.4. 3. The brief facts leading raise for filing this appeal are as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the daughter of Mallegowda and Lakshmamma and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the brothers. She was given in marriage to one Malleshagowda of Sakaleshapura Taluk. Later, her father brought her to his house as her husband left the village. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and there is no partition effected between them. The plaintiff requested the defendants to give her share but the defendants refused to effect the partition. The defendant No.4 has illegally sold 08 guntas of suit item No.1 property in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2007. It is contended that the sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiff's share. Hence, the cause of action - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 4. The Defendant Nos.1 and 4 filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the plaintiff with defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4. It is contended that there was an oral agreement amongst the children of late Mallegowda i.e., the original propositus. The suit schedule properties were divided equally. The plaintiff was married to Malleshagowda in 1972 and was living with her husband and hence she is not entitled to the share in the suit properties. Accordingly, to dismiss the suit against the defendant Nos.1 and 4. 5. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased Mallegowda and contended that the documents produced by the plaintiff are concocted and hence, prays to dismiss the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 6. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement contending that he had purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule property from defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2007 and defendant No.3 is the bonafide purchaser of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On the other hand, the defendant No.1(d) examined himself as DW.1, defendant No.4 was examined as DW.2 and defendant No.2 was examined as DW.4, and examined two independent witnesses as DWs.3 and 5 and marked 6 document as Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. 8. The trial Court, on the assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of plaintiff in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 part. It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share, defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) together entitled to 1/4th share and defendant Nos.2 and 4 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties. The sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.3 dated 26.03.2007 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.116/2007, preferred as appeal in R.A.No.1/2013 on the file of 5th Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan. The First Appellate Court, reassessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 01.08.2016. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3. He submits that there was a prior partition in the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4. The plaintiff is not entitled to share in the suit schedule properties. He submits that defendant No.2 has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 performed the marriage of the plaintiff and at the time of her marriage, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have spent a huge amount. He also submits that defendant No.2 has denied the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased Mallegowda. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on this ground, prays to allow the appeal. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The plaintiff, to prove her case, examined herself as PW.1 and deposed that she is the daughter of Mallegowda. The defendant Nos.1 and 4 have filed a written statement admitting the relationship of plaintiff with deceased Mallegowda, admitted that she is the daughter of deceased Mallegowda. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 and they are the members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and admittedly - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 there is no partition effected between the parties. Defendant No.4 sold item No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3, Defendant No.3 has contended that he is the bonafide purchaser for value without notice. Admittedly, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and no partition is effected and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and granted 1/4th share. The First Appellate Court on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the appeal. Both the Courts below are concurrently recorded the finding of fact that there exist a relationship between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and no partition is effected. Both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 25.07.2025 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11003 RSA No. 2194 of 2016 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to cost. In view of the dismissal of appeal, I.A.No.2/2016, not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17