- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2204 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T.H. MUTHU S/O LATE HONNAGIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O THYLURU VILLAGE ATHAGURU HOBLI MADDUR TALUK-571 428. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH .M.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KEMPAJAMMA W/O LATE APPAJIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O KORANAGERE VILLAGE MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159. 2. JEEVAN S/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. CHANDRAKALA @ PUTTI D/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R2 AND R3 ARE R/O BEVURU VILLAGE AND POST Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159. 4. SWAMY S/O LATE HONNAGIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O THYLURU VILLAGE ATTHAGUR HOBLI MADDUR TALUK-571 428. …RESPONDENTS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.61/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.396/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2023 passed in R.A.No.61/2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, and the judgment and preliminary decree - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 dated 26.8.2023 passed in O.S.No.396/14 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant no.2, respondent nos.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.4 was defendant No.1. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows : The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. Plaintiff No.1, the late Jayalakshmamma and the defendants are the children of Honnagirigowda. Plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are the children of the late Jayalakshmamma. It is the case of plaintiffs that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. After the demise of the late Honnagirigowda, although the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for partition, but the defendants did not effect the partition. Hence, a cause of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and contend that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and it is contended that, during the lifetime of their father, Sri Honnagirigowda, the properties were changed to their names. Their father died on 23.11.1998. After the death of their father, the properties were transferred in the names of the defendants, and they have partitioned among them a residential house in the village, and the mutations were carried out long back during 1991-2020. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against them. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the aforesaid pleadings, framed the relevant issues. 3.3. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff no.1 was examined as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3, and marked 13 documents as exhibits P.1 to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 P.13. On the other hand, defendant no.1 was examined as DW.1, and no documents were marked. 3.4. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 26.8.2020. It is declared that plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 & 2 are entitled to 1/4th share each, in all the suit schedule properties. Defendant no.2, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.396/14 filed an appeal in R.A.No.61/2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Maddur. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 15.6.2023, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.396/2014. Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decree, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for defendant no.2. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for defendant no.2 submits that there was a prior partition in the family of defendant no.2 in 1999. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Courts below, and they have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He also submits that, defendant no.2 filed an application for production of additional evidence before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, allowed the said application, and permitted the documents to be marked as exhibits ‘D’ series. The courts below have not adequately considered regarding the prior partition effected in 1999. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant no.2. 7. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit. The plaintiffs have pleaded that, the suit schedule properties are the joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and no partition has been effected, and to prove that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 suit schedule properties are the joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, the plaintiffs have produced the documents, marked as exhibits P.1 to P.13, which discloses that, the suit schedule properties were standing in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants have taken a defence that, there was an earlier oral partition, of the joint family properties in their family in 1999. Though, defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1, the defendants have not produced any records to show that there was a prior partition in 1999, and have not examined any witnesses, who were said to be present at the time of oral partition. The defendants failed to establish that there was a prior partition in 1999. The trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants have failed to prove that there was an earlier oral partition of the joint family properties, in their family, during 1999 and 1/4th share was granted to the plaintiffs - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 and defendants each. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Admittedly, the defendants have failed to establish that, there was a prior oral partition in 1999. In the absence of evidence on record regarding prior partition, the defence of the defendants cannot be accepted. Both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find an error in the impugned judgments or any substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The Appeal is dismissed; The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13345 RSA No. 2204 of 2023 In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.2/2023 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE rs