- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2012 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKANARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT KAMAREDDIHALLY VILLAGE, MANDCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M R RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR MS.NITHYA SAMPATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B N ASWATHAPPA, S/O LATE DODDA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMAREDDIHALLY VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI K G SUBRAMANI, S/O PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT OPP TO OLD OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GOWRIBIDNAUR, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M RANGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O/DT 31.10.2023, APPEAL IS DISMISSED AGAINST R2) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.1.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.108/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., GAURIBIDANUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal is against the concurrent finding in a suit for injunction. The suit is filed by one Chikkanarayanappa against two persons namely B.N. Ashwathappa and K.G. Subramani. Defendants are children of plaintiff's elder brother. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction on the premise that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property pursuant to registered sale deed dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 22.11.1984 in respect of suit property bearing survey No.128 of Bommenahalli village, Gowribidanur Taluk. 4. The defendants took a contention that the suit property is the joint family property and the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the property and it was partitioned after the property was purchased pursuant to a palupatti between the plaintiffs and the defendants. 5. The trial Court did not accept the plaintiff's contention that prior to the purchase of the suit property, there was a partition between the plaintiff and his brother. The trial Court concluded that at the time of purchase, the family was joint and later, there was some arrangement among the family members to divide the properties. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and decrees, the plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that since registered sale deed dated 22.11.1984 is in the name of the plaintiff, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court could not have held that the suit property is the joint family property. It is her contention that the finding relating to the joint family property recorded by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is primarily based on the xerox copy of a palupatti and in the absence of original palupatti being produced, the Court could not have held that the suit property is the joint family property based on the xerox copy of the palupatti. It is also her further contention that there is a presumption in favour of the self acquisition whenever the revenue records and the sale deed are in the name of a person, when the presumption is in favour of the plaintiff, the burden was on the defendants to establish that the properties acquired through the joint family funds, and said burden was not discharged. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. After going through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is noticed that the trial Court has recorded a finding that there is no proof relating to the partition between the plaintiff and defendants prior to the purchase of the suit property in the year 1984. The plaintiff contended that before the property was purchased on 22.11.1984, there was a oral partition between himself and his brother. Said partition is not established. 10. It is also noticed that the defendants have produced a xerox copy of the palupatti and have taken a stand that original palupatti is in the custody of the plaintiff. To the said palupatti, the plaintiff has taken a defence that his signature is taken while he was admitted in hospital. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 11. What is apparent is the signature on the palupatti is admitted. Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that his signature was taken when he was in hospital and he was not in a position to understand the consequence. 12. After going through the records, it is noticed that the plaintiff has not led the evidence of any independent witness to substantiate his contention that the signature was taken when he was in hospital. There are no records to show that he was hospitalized. 13. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff does not confer exclusive right in favour of the plaintiff and it is the property purchased with the joint family income for the benefit of the joint family. The plaintiff has neither produced prior partition nor independent income. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20231 RSA No. 639 of 2012 Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law would arise. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 15. In view of disposal of the appeal, interim application if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS,BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35