- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.365 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PADMAVATHI BAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R. PRAKASH R/O KOTTUR VILLAGE MANIGANAHALLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K. PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RASHMI PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.JAYARAJ S/O LATE P.N. CHADROJI RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. SRI. YOGISH S/O P.N. CHANDROJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE P.N. CHANDROJI RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 4. SMT. C. ROOPA D/O P.N. CHANDROJI RAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RAILWAY STATIONROAD, AJJAMPURA TOWN, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMANGALORE DISTRICT - 577228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.R.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 - ABSENT; R3 & R4 SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DECREE DATED 16.12.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.05.2010 PASSED IN O.S.No.213/2000 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.213/2000, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2014 in R.A.No.37/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2010 in O.S.No.213/2000 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Sy.No.80/3P measuring 2 acres situate at Mallenahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk, originally belonged to one Sri. Ranoji Rao. It is also stated that said Ranoji Rao died leaving behind his two children namely, M.R. Shankar Rao and M.R. Prakash Rao. M.R. Prakash Rao died leaving behind his wife Padmavathi Bai - defendant in the suit. It is further stated that, the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the children of Ramoji - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 Rao, and M.R. Shankar Rao and his son Vasu have sold suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff as per the registered Sale Deed dated 12.05.1989 for sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. It is also stated that, the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff. It is also further stated in the plaint that defendant has filed O.S. No.55/1993 before the Addl. Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar, seeking partition in respect of the joint family property of her husband - M.R. Prakash Rao and the brother of her husband - M.R. Shankar Rao. The said suit came to be decreed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is also stated that, the subject land in O.S.No.213/2000 was also the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.55/1993. 4. On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and took up a contention that the joint family property is the property of her husband and husband's brother and therefore, in view of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.55/1993, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 5. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Defendant examined herself as D1 and got examined one more witness as D2 and produced seven documents which were marked as Exs.D1 to D7. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by Judgment dated 29.05.2010, decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred R.A.No.37/2010 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the appeal was contested by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, on his demise. 6. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2014, dismissed the appeal and as such confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2024, formulated the following substantial questions of law: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 " i) Whether the defendant prove that the courts below have committed an error in declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, when the suit schedule property was the joint family property of the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendants as on the date of execution of registered sale deed ? ii) Whether the defendant prove that the court below have not properly considered the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.55/1993 wherein a partition was effected between the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendants ? iii) What order or decree ? " 8. I have heard Sri. Mallikarjun N.K., learned counsel for the appellant and no representation has been made on behalf of the respondents. 9. Sri. Mallikarjun N.K., learned counsel for the appellant contended that, as the suit property is the joint family property of the husband of defendant and his brother M.R. Shankar Rao, and therefore, the defendant is having half share in the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 schedule property, and that apart, the suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.55/1993 came to be decreed on 03.12.1993 allotting half share of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Sri.Ramoji Rao, who died leaving behind his two sons, namely M.R. Shankar Rao and M.R. Prakash Rao. M.R. Prakash Rao died leaving behind his wife - defendant. It is also to be noted that the suit schedule property is the land bearing Sy.No. 80/3P measuring 2 acres, situate at Mallenahalli Village, Tarikere Taluk. The suit schedule property in the present suit was also item no.2 in the schedule in O.S.No.55/1993 filed by the defendant, seeking partition and separate possession against her husband and brother. It is not in dispute that the said suit was filed on 20.04.1991 and the suit in O.S.No.213/2000 filed by the plaintiff was on 04.11.2000. The Trial Court, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 O.S.No.55/1993 (Ex.D4), decreed the suit of the plaintiff therein who is the defendant in O.S.No.213/2000 and appellant in the present Regular Second Appeal. The perusal of Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.1993 in O.S.No.55/1993 makes it clear that the defendant is entitled for half share in the suit property. The said aspect of the matter was not considered by both the Courts below and further, both the Courts below on erroneous assumption of law, arrived at a conclusion to decree the suit of the plaintiff solely on the ground that, the plaintiff in O.S.No.213/2000 was not a party in O.S.No.55/1993. The said finding recorded by both the Courts below is a material illegality by ignoring the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.55/1993(Ex.D4). In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by both the Courts below suffers from perversity and the same requires to be interfered with in this appeal. Hence, the substantial questions of law framed above, favour the defendant. 11. Suffice to say that it is open for the plaintiff to workout his remedy in the Final Decree proceedings, if any, filed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32973 RSA No. 365 of 2015 defendant / appellant, pursuant to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.55/1993. 12. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2014 in R.A.No.37/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere, is hereby dismissed. (iii) The Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2010 in O.S.No.213/2000 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, is hereby dismissed. (iv) The suit in O.S.No.213/2000 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54