- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1560 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: SIDDARAJU S/O. SIDDAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A) SMT. RENUKAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O LATE SIDDARAJU 1(B) SANDEEP S AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDARAJU 1(C) SMT. SOWMYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O LATE SIDDRAJU ALL R/AT JALAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 159. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S ALREADY ON RECORD, SMT. NINGAMMA, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 2. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S ALREADY ON RECORD WE BOTH RESIDED AT JALAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POT RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 159. 3. J.S. REVANASIDDAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.76, 10TH MAIN ROAD, BINNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040. 4. R. PRAJVALA D/O. J.S. REVANASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 5. R. GOKUL S/O. J.S. REVANASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.20, 3RD MAIN, BYRAVESWARANAGARA, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 072. 6. SRI. CHANDRAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.24, 3RD MAIN, BYRAVESWARANAGARA, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 072. 7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.128, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, KALYANANAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072. 8. SRI AJITH R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O RAMESH R/AT NO.209/1, BHCS LAYOUT PADUKA MANDHIR ROAD UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. SUBRAMANYA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 & R6; R1 DECEASED AND NO NEED TO IMPLEAD THE LR’S OF DECEASED R1 (V/O DATED 29.09.2023); SRI A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. BABU J.C., ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7043/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by the XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 O.S.No.7043/2010 so far as against not granting decree for partition in respect of suit Item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9. 2. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their rankings before the trial court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds by pleading that all the suit schedule Item Nos.1 to 10 properties are ancestral and joint family properties. It is the case of plaintiff that propositus is one Siddappa, who is defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is his wife. The plaintiff, defendant Nos.3, 6 and 7 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are daughter and son of defendant No.3. It is stated that all have constituted Hindu Undivided Family. It is the pleading of plaintiff that the suit schedule Item Nos.2, 5 and 10 properties are joint family properties of Siddappa and there was division between defendant No.1 – Siddappa and his brother. Out of the income derived from Item Nos.2, 5 and 10 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 properties, the defendant No.1 – Siddappa purchased the suit Item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9 properties. Therefore, all the properties are joint family and ancestral properties. Hence, prays to effect partition and grant decree. 4. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have filed their written statement by denying the plaint averments. It is the case of defendants that only the suit Item Nos.2, 5 and 10 properties are ancestral properties and other properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.3. Hence, prays to decree the suit in respect of suit Item Nos.2, 5 and 10. 5. The defendant No.6 had filed a memo stating that suit to be decreed. Therefore, the case of contested defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7 that the partition suit be decreed only in respect of suit Item Nos.2, 5 and 10 properties. 6. Based on the pleadings the trial court has framed the following issues and additional issues: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 1) Does the plaintiff prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2) Does the defendant No.3 prove that Item No.1, 3 to 8 are his self-acquired properties? 3) Does the plaintiff prove that, he is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties? 4) To what order or decree? Additional Issue framed on 14.8.2013: 1) Does the plaintiff prove that the Item No.9 and 10 of the suit schedule are the joint family properties? Additional Issue framed on 8.9.2016: 2) Whether the defendant No.2, 3 and 5 prove that the 1st defendant has executed a Will dated 12.6.2010 bequeathing his undivided half share over the suit property in favour of defendant. No.3? Additional Issues framed on 3.10.2017: 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that Sale Deed dated by 7.10.2006 executed by Smt. Ningamma with respect to Item No.7 of the property is not binding on his share? 4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Will dated 12.6.2010 executed by Sri.Siddappa in favour of J.S.Revanasiddaiah with respect to Item No.3 of the property is not 'binding on his share? 5) Whether the plaintiff proves that Will dated 30.6.2010 executed by Ningamma in favour of J.S.Revanasiddaiah with respect to Item No.3 of the property is not binding on his share? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 6) Whether the plaintiff proves that Gift Deed dated 16.6.2016 executed by Siddappa in favour of J.S.Revanasiddaiah with respect to Item No.1 of the property is not binding on his share? 7) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that Item No.8 and 9 of the suit schedule property was acquired by his wife in the name of 4th and 5th defendant as contended? 8) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that suit is barred by limitation? 9) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that court fee paid is insufficient? Issue framed on 1.4.2019: 10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 7. The trial court had decreed the suit in part only in respect of suit Item Nos.2, 5 and 10 properties and dismissed the suit in respect of suit Item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9. During the pendency of suit the defendant No.1 died, therefore granted 1/5th share to the plaintiff. 8. Being aggrieved by not granting the decree so far as suit item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9 the plaintiff has preferred the appeal by raising various grounds. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 9. Learned counsel for the appellant in consonance with the grounds raised has argued that suit Item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9 are also joint family properties as they have been purchased by the defendant No.1 out of joint family funds, which are derived from the suit Item Nos.2, 5 and 10. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and grant the decree for partition in respect of suit Item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9 also. 10. It is submitted that during the purchase of properties the plaintiff/defendant No.3, 6 and 7 were minors, therefore, all the properties are joint family properties. Hence, prays to decree the partition in respect of all the properties. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial court has decreed the suit in part correctly and justified dismissing the suit so far as the suit properties at Item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9. He submitted that the suit Item No.1 has been purchased by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 the defendant No.1 and subsequently, it was gifted to the defendant No.3. Therefore, defendant No.3 has become exclusive owner of the suit Item No.3. Further submitted that the suit Item No.3 property is purchased in the joint name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, but that is rendered by defendant No.3 and at that time, the defendant No.3 was working at Bangalore and out of which savings he has sent the money to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the suit Item No.3 is purchased not out of joint family funds but out of savings earned by the defendant No.3. 12. Further submitted that suit Item Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9 are purchased exclusively by the defendant No.3, but in the name of his wife and children since at that time the defendant No.3 was serving in Government service in a Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, these properties are exclusive properties of defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5. Further submitted that so far as suit item No.7 is concerned, which is purchased in the name of defendant No.7, but it is handled by defendant No.3. Therefore, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 argued that trial court has correctly assessed the evidence and rightly passed the judgment and decree, which needs no interference and as such prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Upon hearing the arguments from both sides, perusal of pleadings and evidence on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that all the suit item Nos.1 to 10 are the ancestral and joint family properties? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants proves that suit item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9 are their self acquired properties? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires any interference by this Court? 14. It is the simple case of plaintiff for partition stating that all the parties in the suit have constituted a Hindu Joint and Undivided Family and the properties item - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 Nos.1 to 10 are joint family properties. Therefore, prays for division of properties of 1/6th share in all the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit the defendant Nos.1 and 2 died. 15. The trial court decreed the suit so far as item Nos.2, 5 and 10, which is not challenged by the defendants. Defendant No.3 is not aggrieved by decree of suit in part. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to suit item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9 only. 16. Upon considering the evidence on record, inspite of suit item Nos.5 is concerned, the defendant No.1 had purchased the suit item No.1 property in the year 1974, admittedly at that point of time the plaintiff and other children were minors. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 has executed the registered gift deed dated 16.06.2010. Said Ex.D-3 to D-5 are gift deeds, mutation, RTC Extracts, are the certified copies. There is no rebuttal evidence by the plaintiff in proving that gift deed executed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 is not correct. The defendant No.1 – Siddappa had purchased the suit item No.1 property when plaintiff and other defendants were minors and subsequently, it was gifted to the defendant No.3. In the course of cross examination the PW1/plaintiff admitted that suit item No.2 properties are dry lands and therefore obviously they could not derive the income and therefore, purchase of suit item properties cannot be held as it is self acquired under joint family properties. Ex.D-3 – gift deed proves that the defendant No.3 had become the absolute owner of suit item no.1 property. So far as the suit item No.3 is concerned, it is purchased in the year 1987 in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. 17. DW1 being defendant No.2 in her evidence has stated that suit item No.3 was purchased for total sale consideration of Rs.38,000/- (Ex.D-22) and DW1 stated that the entire sale consideration was paid by the defendant No.3 as defendant No.3 was sending Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per month to the defendant Nos.1 and 2. At - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 that relevant point of time, it also proved from the evidence that when defendant No.3 was 15 years old he left village and house and started earning by working in Bangalore. DW2, who is defendant No.3 has produced Ex.P-39 Bank Passbook issued by State Bank of Mysore at that relevant point of time in the year 1987 the defendant No.3 out of savings as reflected in the Bank passbook has sent the amount to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and out of this income the defendant Nos.1 and 2 purchased item No.3. Since the defendant No.3 had paid the sale consideration, the defendant No.1 had executed Will in favour of defendant No.3. Though defendant Nos.4 and 5 are attesting witnesses to the Will and gift deed, defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, through attesting witnesses DW4 and DW5 execution of Will is proved. 18. The PW1 in the cross examination has admitted that the defendant No.3 secured Government job in the year 1981. Therefore, it is proved that when defendant - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 Nos.3 was 15 years old, came to Bangalore and started to work and was earning and later on in the year 1981, he secured Government job. Therefore, as admitted by DW1 it is proved that DW3 has sent money for purchasing the suit item Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, it is proved that these properties are not joint family properties, but they are proved to be self acquired properties of defendant No.3. 19. So far as the suit item Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9 are concerned, they were purchased in the year 2000-2002 respectively through registered sale deeds. The defendant No.3 has got government job admittedly in a Commercial Tax Department in the year 1981. Therefore, the defendant No.3 has purchased these properties in the name of his wife and children being made the defendant No.2 as a GPA holder. Therefore it is proved that these suit item Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9 are proved to be self acquired properties of defendant No.3. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 20. So far as suit item No.7 is concerned it is purchased in the name of defendant No.7, who is another daughter of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, the defendant No.7 was home maker and had no independent income. DW1, who is the mother of plaintiff and defendant Nos.3, 6 and 7 has given evidence that defendant No.3 has contributed his income for purchasing the suit item No.7 and given to his sister. It is revealed from the cross examination of DW1 made by the plaintiff. It is evident from the evidence of DW2 and it is suggested by the plaintiff himself and proved that the defendant No.3 has studied upto M.A. and BBM and is elder son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No.3 was appointed to the Commercial Tax Department and had worked as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and defendant No.3 has served at a length of 27 years at the said Department. It is suggested that the defendant No.3 was removed from service, but just because he was removed from service that does not - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 prove that defendant No.3 has not got income and properties purchased are out of joint family funds. 21. Therefore, upon once again considering and appreciating the evidence on record, it is proved that the suit item Nos.2, 5 and 10 are only referred to be joint family nature of properties but it is proved that suit item Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 10 are self acquired properties of defendant No.3. Therefore, in this regard, the trial court has correctly assessed the evidence and decreed the suit in part. 22. Therefore, it is proved that though the plaintiff and defendants have constituted a Hindu Joint Undivided Family, but it is proved that suit item Nos.2, 5 and 10 are only ancestral properties, therefore the trial court is correct in decreeing the suit so far as suit item Nos.2, 5 and 10 and dismissing the suit in respect of other properties. Hence, there is no need to be make interference with the judgment and decree passed by the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37781 RFA No. 1560 of 2019 trial court. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.(i) in partly affirmative, Point No.(ii) in the affirmative and Point No.(iii) in the negative. 23. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by the XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.7043/2010, is hereby confirmed. (iii) No costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30