- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2229 OF 2016 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. K.B. PAKEERAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE K.P.PAKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/O RETIRED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING S.N.VEERAPPA COMPOUND MAIN ROAD, VINOBHANAGAR ROAD KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA CITY 2. K.P. BASAVARAJA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE K.P. BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3. KARTHIKA .K.B S/O LATE K.P. BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O POLICE QUARTERS HANUMANTHANAGAR BHADRAVATHI-577 301. 4. K.P. ANANDA S/O LATE K.P.PAKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O UPPAR STREET Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 KUMSI SHIVAMOGGA-TQ 5. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE K.P.PAKEERAPPA W/O SEETHARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O RETIRED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING S.N. VEERAPPA COMPOUND MAIN ROAD, VINOBHANAGAR ROAD KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA CITY. 6. VEERAPPA S/O NARASIMHIAH AND HULUGAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 6(A) SMT. S.V. LATHA D/O S.N.VEERAPPA W/O RAHUL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O No. 1027/15, B.T.M 1ST STAGE NEAR UDUPI GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 029. 6(B) SMT. S.V. MAMATHA D/O S.N.VEERAPPA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O R.R.SMART HOME POLT-51, OPP. BLUE DART CHUNCHANAGATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 062. 6(C) SMT. S.V.SMITHA D/O S.N. VEERAPPA W/O KOTRESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O R.R. SMART HOME, PLOT-51 OPP. BLUE DART, CHUNCHANAGATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 062. 6(D) SMT. S.V. ANITHA D/O S.N.VEERAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 W/O GIRISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O R.R. SMART HOME, PLOT-51 OPP. BLUE DART, CHUNCHANAGATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 062. 6(E) SMT. S.V. SUNITHA D/O S.N. VEERAPPA W/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O VEERANNA COMPOUND VEERANNA LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE 1ST CROSS VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 7. KRISHNAPPA S/O NARASIMHIAH AND HULUGAMMA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS AGRICULTURIST BESIDES MES CONVENT VINOBNANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA CITY 8. T. MANJAPPA S/O THIPPANNA PELLANNARA AND RAMAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O SOPPINAKERE SHIKARIPURA-577 427. 9. CHANDRAMMA W/O DR. BHEEMAPPA D/O NARASIMHIAH AND HULUGAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O KRISHNA HOUSE No.113 BANASHANKARI EXTENTION BESIDES HOSPITAL, PADMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU-58. 10. SAROJA W/O NEELAPPA D/O THIPPANNA PELLANNARA AND RAMAMMA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O 1/A 6TH CROSS, KENGERI UPANAGAR OLAKERE HALLI, BENGALURU-60. 11. PREMAMMA W/O BALAKRISHNA HORATTI D/O THIPPANNA PELLANNARA AND RAMAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O MARU, HEREKERUR TQ-581 111. 12. SUDHA W/O MALLESHAPPA D/O THIPPANNA PELLANNARA AND RAMAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O No.344/E, WEST COLONY RAILWAY WHEELS, BENGALURU-62. 13. SMT. GANGAMMA DEAD BY HER LRs NAGARATHNA D/O GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O HOSANAGAR-TQ SHIVAMOGGA-DIST. 14. SMT. KUMARI D/O GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O UPARAKERI, KUMSI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DIST. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.B. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE BABU HUCHHANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 RETIRED TRAINING EMPLOYEMENT AND TRAINING R/O MARUTHI NILAYA BHEEMASHWARA NAGAR CHUNCHAGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-62. 2. SMT. SANNAMMA W/O D.S. RAMAPPA D/O LATE BABU HUCHHANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O B.BLOCK, P.J.EXETENSION DAVANAGERE. 3. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O H.DEVIGAPPA D/O LATE BABU HUCHHANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O RUKMNI NAGAR, JODIBHAVI ROAD OPP. GOVERNMENT SCHOOL NAGASANDRA-POST BENGALURU-73. 4. SMT. GANGAMMA DEAD BY HER LRS RENUKA D/O GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O UPPARAKERI, KUMSI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DIST. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 4(A) SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE RENUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4(B) ASHWINI D/O LATE RENUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4(C) SHASHI S/O LATE RENUKAPPA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS LRS (A) TO (C) ARE R/AT UPPARA KERI, KUMSHI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 5. YALLAMMA D/O GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O UPPARAKERI, KUMSI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA-DIST. 6. SUKANYA D/O GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O UPPARAKERI, KUMSI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA-DIST. 7. MAHESHA S/O SMT. LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O UPPARAKERI, KUMSI TOWN SHIVAMOGG-DIST. 8. DR. PUTTAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS REKHA W/O DR. LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O NISRGA LAYOUT BANNERUGHATTA BENGALURU. 9. PRITAM S/O DR. LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O UPPARA KERI, KUMSI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA-TQ. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 10. SMT. POOJA D/O DR. LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O BENGALURU 11. VENKAMMA W/O LATE LINGAPP D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND DURGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O No.1154, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS VEERABHADRESHWARA TALKIES ROAD KAMALA NAGAR, BENGALURU-79. 12. G.H. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND DURGAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O 82/1, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDARANYAPURAM LAYOUT BENGALURU-97. 13. VISHWANATH SO LATE HANUMAIAH AND DURGAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 13(A) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 13(B) PROMOD S/O LATE VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 13(C) BHUMIKA D/O LATE VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 13(D) SANJAY S/O LATE VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS LRS (A) TO (D) ARE R/AT - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 No.66, MANJUNATHA NILAYA 3RD MAIN, KALYANA NAGAR NAGARA BAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. 14. NAGARAJA DEAD BY HIS LRS PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 15. SMT. SRIDEVI D/O LATE NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R14 AND R15 ARE R/O C/O THIPPANA SOPPINA BEEDI SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3, R4(A-B), R5 TO R7, R11, R12, R13(A), R14 AND R15 ARE SERVED; R13(B TO D) SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 20.07.2022; R8 TO R10 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 20.07.2022; R4(C) – SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 28.10.2024) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.174/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2010 PASSED IN OS NO.295/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN] AND CJM., AT SHIMOGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 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 24.02.2016 passed in R.A.No.174/2010, by the II Additional District Judge, Shivamogga, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 03.04.2010 passed in O.S.No.295/1999 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Shivamogga. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, the respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and other respondents were the ther defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is contended that the original propositus, Babu Huchhanna, had two sons, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 K.B. Hanumanthappa i.e., the plaintiff and K.B. Pakeerappa i.e., defendant No.1, and three daughters, Sannamma, Gangamma, and Yashodamma i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4. It is contended that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are married and residing in their husband’s house, respectively. It is contended that the plaintiff and the defendants are members of a Hindu undivided joint family, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and no partition was/is effected. It is contended that the plaintiff was working in the Employment and Training Department as an Instructor and retired from service on 31.03.1999. It is contended that the plaintiff has not demanded any income from the joint family properties, and after retirement, the plaintiff used to reside in Bengaluru along with his family members. It is contended that the plaintiff enquired about the savings made in the family, but defendant No.1 did not reply. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 11.07.1999 calling upon the defendants to effect a partition. The defendants neither replied to the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 legal notice nor effected a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. On being served the suit summons, legal representatives of defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared before the Court through their respective counsel and filed separate written statements. Though the suit summons was duly served on defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 to 9, they remained absent, hence, placed exparte. Defendant Nos.10 to 17 impleaded in written statement of defendant Nos.10 to 17 is taken as not filed. 3.2. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that late Babu Huchhanna had two sons, i.e., the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and three daughters as mentioned in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff and the defendants constitute a Hindu undivided joint family and prays to decree the suit and allot a legitimate share to defendant No.4. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 3.3. It is contended by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit. It is contended that item No.5 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right to claim share in item No.5 of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.4. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 3.5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to 16. On the other hand, one of the legal representatives of defendant No.1, i.e., defendant No.1(b), was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and no documents were marked. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It is declared that the plaintiff and legal representatives of defendant No.1, i.e., D-1(a) to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 (d), are entitled to 9/24th share each. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to get 1/24th share each, defendant Nos.5 to 9 together entitled to get 1/24th share. Defendant Nos.10 to 12 together entitled to get 1/24th share, and defendant Nos.13 to 18 are together entitled to get 1/24th share. 3.6. Aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, the legal representatives of defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 15 and legal representatives of defendant No.3 filed an appeal in R.A.No.174/2010, on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga. 3.7. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 24.02.2016 and confirmed the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.295/1999. Legal representatives of defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 15, 8, 13, 16, 17 and legal representatives of Gangamma i.e., defendant No.3, preferred this regular second appeal. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the aforesaid defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the aforesaid defendants submits that item No.5 of the suit property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1, as the said property was granted by the land Tribunal in his individual capacity and not for the benefit of the family. The Courts below have committed an error in granting the share in item No.5 of the suit schedule property. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the aforesaid defendants. 7. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1. He has deposed that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. They are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. To substantiate that the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff has produced the documents, Exs.P1 to 7 are the RTC extracts, Exs.P8 to 10 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.P11 is the copy of the legal notice dated 11.07.1999, which discloses that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to defendant No.1, calling upon him to effect partition. Ex.P12 is the postal acknowledgement; Ex.P13 is the Genealogical tree, Ex.P14 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P15 is the lease deed dated 03.06.1968, Ex.P16 is the lease cancellation deed dated 28.12.1987. 8. Nothing has been elicited during the course of cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 regarding the nature of the suit schedule properties and the relationship between the parties. On the other hand, legal representatives of defendant No.1, i.e., defendant No.1(b) was cross-examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and contended that item No.5 of suit schedule property is - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and the same was granted by land Tribunal in favour of defendant No.1 in his individual capacity and not for the enure of the family. However, the defendants have not produced any order passed by the land Tribunal to prove that item No.5 of suit property was granted in favour of defendant No.1 in his individual capacity. In the absence of documents, both the Courts below have rightly held that item No.5 of the suit schedule property was the joint family property and the said item No.5 is not a self-acquired property of defendant No.1. Item No.5 is the joint family property and the plaintiff is entitled to share in item No.5 of the suit schedule property. 9. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against defendant No.1 and rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11819 RSA No. 2229 of 2016 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed; ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.4/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS