- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1425 OF 2013 (PAR-) BETWEEN: 1. P R PURUSHOTHAMA S/O P C RAMALINGAPPA 39 YEARS 2. P C LAKSHMIKANTH S/O P C RAMALINGAPPA 32 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NEHRU BEEDHI NUGGEHALLI BEEDHI PERIYAPATNA PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.N. SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH K. R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P. C. RAMALINGAPPA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(A) SMT. PUTTAJAYAMMA W/O LATE P.C.RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEHRU BEEDHI Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 NUGGEHALLI BEEDHI PERIYAPATNA PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 30.07.2025) 2. SMT. JAGADAMBA D/O P C RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEHRU BEEDHI NUGGEHALLI BEEDHI PERIYAPATNA PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEHRU BEEDHI NUGGEHALLI BEEDHI PERIYAPATNA PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 4. SMT. P R LALITHA D/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEHRU BEEDHI NUGGEHALLI BEEDHI PERIYAPATNA PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 5. SRI P R RAMESH S/O P C RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF ANE CHOWKUR ROAD THOPNA KOLA ROAD PERIYAPATNA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C.CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R1(a), R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.177/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.167/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR, SITTING AT PERIYAPATNA. 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. This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: i) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to succeed to the property of defendant No.1, who has died during the pendency of this appeal? 2. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for consideration on merits. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 3. This is an appeal against the concurrent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit is dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal in R.A.No.177/2011 is also dismissed. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiffs. 4. The genealogy claimed by the plaintiffs, to some extent disputed by the defendants is as under: TALUK: PERIYAPATNA FAMILY TREE P.C. Ramalingappa (74 Years) ------------------------------------------------- 1. Jayamma 2. Puttajayamma 3. Lakshmamma ---------------- ------------- 1. P.R. Ramesh 2. P.R. Lalitha 1. P.R. Gopika 2. P.R. Lakshmi --------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.R. Jagadamba 2. P.R. Purushothama 3. P.R. Lakshmikanth (28 Years) (26 Years) (19 Years) 5. One P.C. Ramalingappa was the propositus. It is stated by the plaintiffs that he had two wives, namely, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 Jayamma and Puttajayamma. Defendants contend that P.C. Ramalingappa had 9 wives. 6. In the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs, the name of alleged third wife, Lakshmamma is mentioned and names of alleged remaining wives are not mentioned. 7. It is stated that the Jayamma had two sons from P.C. Ramalingappa, namely, P.R.Ramesh and P.R. Lalit and second wife Puttajayamma had three children, namely, P.R.Jagadamba, P.R.Purushotham and P.C.R. Lakshmikanth and alleged third wife Lakshmamma had two children, namely, P.R.Gopika and P.R.Lakshmi. 8. The suit is filed by P.R.Purushotham and P.C.Lakshmikanth, two children from Puttajayamma - alleged 2nd wife of P.C. Ramalingappa. Defendant No.1 is P.C. Ramalingappa. Jagadamba, sister of plaintiffs was arrayed as defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 is alleged to be the wife of P.C. Ramalingappa, which contention is disputed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 9. Defendants No.4 and 5 are children of P.C.Ramalingappa from wife Jayamma. The plaintiffs, who claim to be children from the 2nd wife of P.C.Ramalingappa, filed the suit for partition and even according to the plaintiffs, P.C.Ramalingappa married Puttajayyamma their mother when the first marriage of P.C.Ramalingappa with Jayamma was subsisting. 10. The suit was dismissed primarily on the premise that children of 2nd wife are not entitled to claim any shares in the properties of P.C.Ramalingappa when he was alive. 11. First Appellate Court took the same view. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. Now P.C. Ramalingappa, the propositus died during the pendency of this appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the except item No.5 of suit schedule properties, all other suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of P.C. Ramalingappa. It was his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 contention in the Trial Court that all properties except item No.5 are self acquired properties. Thus, it is urged that the plaintiffs are entitled to equally inherit all the self acquired properties of P.C. Ramalingappa along with the children of first wife. 13. It is also urged that as far as item No.5 is concerned, plaintiffs are entitled to inherit in the notional share that is to be allotted to P.C.Ramalingappa immediately before his death. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants would contend that all the properties are not self acquired properties of P.C.Ramalingappa and in fact, the properties are all the ancestral properties of P.C.Ramalingappa. It is his further contention that some of the properties are sold prior to the institution of the suit by P.C.Ramalingappa and those persons are not made parties to the suit. 15. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 16. It is noticed that the defendants have raised the contention that P.C.Ramalingappa had executed the Gift Deed before the institution of the suit. However, the gift deed was not produced before the Trial Court. 17. Now learned counsel appearing for the respondents has filed a memo to substantiate the contention that the gift deed was executed by P.C.Ramalingappa. 18. If the properties are the self acquired properties of P.C. Ramalingappa, then the suit for partition during the lifetime of P.C. Ramalingappa in respect of these properties are not maintainable. If the suit properties are ancestral properties, then the children from 2nd wife are also entitled to share the notional share that is allotted to P.C. Ramalingappa immediately before his death. 19. Thus, the question whether the properties are the ancestral properties of P.C. Ramalingappa or the self acquired properties of P.C. Ramalingappa will have a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 bearing on the quantum of shares to be allotted to the parties. Moreover, the nature of the properties whether ancestral or self acquired will have a bearing on the question relating to the validity of the alleged gift deed by P.C. Ramalingappa. 20. Under these circumstances, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to decide as to whether all the persons in whose favour the right over the suit schedule properties are allegedly created by P.C.Ramalingappa even before institution of the suit are made parties or not, and to decide as to whether all the properties are self acquired properties or ancestral properties, this Court is of the view that the matter has to be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.11.2012 in RA No.177/2011 on the file of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 the Fast Track Court, Hunsur, Mysore District, are set aside. iii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 in O.S.No.167/2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunsur sitting at Periyapatna, are set aside. iv) The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider the case afresh. v) If plaintiffs intend to implead any of the necessary parties to the suit, the plaintiffs are permitted to implead such parties. vi) The parties are permitted to make necessary application for amendment of the pleadings if so advised in law and if such applications are filed same shall be treated as having been filed before commencement of the trial. vii) All contentions of the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. viii) Parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the suit considering the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2004 and most of the parties to the proceedings are aged over 70 years. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34242 RSA No. 1425 of 2013 In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same are disposed of. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ...