- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2021 (PA/DE/IN) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S.N. MANJUNATHA S/O V. NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O SABBENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. S.N. VENUGOPAL S/O V. NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O SABBENAHALLIVILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 3. SMT. S.N. VIMALA D/O V NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O SABBENAHALLIVILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 AND: 1. DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 2, 3 & 6 2. V. NARASAPPA S/O LATE DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR. 3. SMT. CHANNAKRISHNAMMA D/O DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O BISAYYAGARAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR. 4. B.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 5. S. MNARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR. 6. SMT. VEKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O DODDA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 CHICKBALLAPUR-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR. 7. SRI. M. VENKATESH RAJU S/O N. MANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O 1ST DIVISION SUNNAKALY STREET BEHIND JOSEPH CONVENT CHICKBALLAPUR-562101. 8. SRI. C.S. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE CHANNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/O SABENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR-562101 CHICKBALLAPUR. 9. SMT. GOPAMMA W/O SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O KOGILU VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560064. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.58/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.235/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of declaration, partition and separate possession, it is specifically contended that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and there was no any partition. Both plaintiffs and defendants constitute undivided joint family and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Further contend that daughter of defendant No.1 Venkatalakshmamma was given money by the defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family to purchase land bearing Sy.No.23/2 and hence, he was not impleaded in the suit and defendant took the specific contention that there is no joint family status and already partition took place on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 20.07.1980 through partition deed and accordingly the sharers are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contend that they have acquired the properties as their self acquired properties and therefore, neither plaintiff nor anybody have any independent right in respect of these properties. The defendant No.5 also contend that he had purchased the Item No.9 of the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 20.05.2002 for the valuable consideration and he is in possession of the suit schedule property and additional issue also framed in view of the defence taken by defendant No.9 that Item No.9 of the suit schedule property was the exclusive self acquired property of defendant and the same was purchased under the sale deed and also contend that the same was sold for the family necessity and additional issues once again framed that whether defendant No.7 proves that plaintiffs are not entitled to any share and also contend that she is a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property for value - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, answered the Issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative that no joint family status in existence and already there was earlier partition and parties have also acted upon in terms of the earlier partition and properties were also sold and defendant Nos.5, 7 and 9 have also purchased the property and hence, Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was a partition and the same is admitted by P.W.1 in the cross-examination and father got some of the properties and when such admission is given, question of allotting any share over the suit schedule property doesn't arise. Moreover, the said document was came into existence in the year 1975 and the suit has been filed in the year 2007. If at all they had any right, they should have challenged the same within 12 years and the same is observed in paragraph No.25 in detail and also in paragraph No.26 taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 that partition between the defendant Nos.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 and 2 also taken place subsequent to the earlier partition between the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 acted upon in terms of subsequent to the earlier partition also and the same has been discussed in paragraph No.26, 27 and 28. The defendant No.6 examined as D.W.3 who is none other than the daughter of defendant No.1 and sister of defendant No.2, and she has stated that her father executed a Will with respect to the properties that was fallen to his share as per partition deed of the year 1988 entered in between the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same also taken note of by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that there is no any existence of joint family. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly considering the grounds which have been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the defendant No.1 proves that there is no joint family status as alleged by the plaintiffs and also whether any joint family is in existence as contended by the plaintiff and Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. In paragraph No.25 taken note of with regard to the earlier gift deed is concerned and the same is not accepted and also taken note of the case of the plaintiffs and also the defence of the defendant that there was a partition on 20.07.1980 between the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and as per the said partition, they are in separate possession and enjoyment of the properties fell to their share and also subsequently they acted upon and material also discloses that if at all plaintiffs are entitled for any partition they can seek the partition from their father from the properties which fell to the share of their father and they are not entitled for any partition from defendant No.1, though the defendant No.1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 is their grandfather as their father has already partitioned from his father who is defendant No.1. The Appellate Court in detail discussed the same and confirmed the said judgment. 4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed by the appellant and contend that original propositus late Munishamappa has executed registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.1 bequeathing his half share in the Item Nos.3 to 10 and 12 of the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendant No.2 and the plaintiffs are entitled for said share in the suit schedule property. It is contended that Court below without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances, committed an error in not accepting the gift deed. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the defendant No.1 himself has admitted that suit schedule property are the ancestral properties and except Item Nos.1 and 2, the defendant No.1 has no other source of income to acquire the properties and even such material - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 available on record, committed an error in coming to the conclusion that parties have acted upon and hence, it requires interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents and also considering the pleadings of the plaintiff that he contend that there was no any partition. But, P.W.1 categorically admitted that there was a partition between the father of the plaintiff and also the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have already divided the properties subsequent to the partition and also disposed of the properties of their share. When there is a clear admission that already there was a partition long ago and the same was not questioned and rightly observed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that if they have any right they can plead and claim the partition from the property which was allotted to the share of their plaintiff’s father. When such finding is given and when there is no any existence of joint family and parties have also long - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 back partitioned the property and they have acted upon and in terms of the said partition also sold some of the properties and there are subsequent purchasers who claims that they are the bonafide purchasers and the same has answered by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in coming to such a conclusion that when the parties have partitioned the property and acted upon, question of existence of undivided Hindu joint family between the plaintiffs and defendants doesn't arise. When the joint possession and existence of joint family is not proved, question of admitting and framing any substantive question of law doesn't arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) Second appeal is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50064 RSA No. 782 of 2021 ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39