- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: VANAJA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY ’SRI GANESH’ UDDALAGUDDE OF HANEHALLI VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK P.O. BARKUR-576210 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. UDAYA KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. ARUNA KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. ANITHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 5. AJEETHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R1 TO R5 ARE CHILDREN OF RUDRAMMA SHEDTHI AND R/AT NEERJADDU OF HEGGUNJE VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK P.O HEGGUNJE-576101 6. LAXMI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS W/O NARASIMHA SHETTY UDDALAGUDDE OF HANEHALLI VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK P.O BARKUR-576210 7. GOWRI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY PRESENTLY AT KRISHNA APARTMENTS POSALAPPA GARDEN, ADUGODI BENGALURU-560030 8. KUSUMA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY PRESENTLY AT NO.7, SILVER SPRING TAPOVANA ROAD NASIK-422002 9. BHARATHI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY 802, SECTOR-II, KALAMBOLI NEW BOMBAY-410218 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 10. SANKAMMA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY W/O KUSHARA SHETTY NO.14/1, "BANASHREE" 8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560027 11. VASANTHI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY W/O RAVI N SHETTY C/O PERFECT AUTO GARAGE NO.1/1, SUBBABBA GARDEN ADUGODI BENGALURU-560030 12. SUNITHA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY W/O PRABHAKARA SHETTY NO.31, CHIKKABETTAHALLI ADITYANAGAR VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097 …RESPONDENTS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNDAPURA DISMISSING APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2008 PASSED IN OS NO.90/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AT KUNDAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 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 30.11.2018, passed in R.A.No.35/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura and the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2008, passed in O.S.No.90/2004 by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Kundapura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 plaintiff that one Narasimha Shetty was the original propositus, and he had two wives namely, Siddamma and Lakshmi. Siddamma is the first wife, and Lakshmi is the second wife. Through Siddamma, the daughter by name Rudramma i.e., defendant No.8 was born. Defendant No.8 had children i.e., defendant Nos.8(a) to 8(e). Through Lakshmi, defendant Nos.2 to 7, and the plaintiff are born. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. It is contended that during the lifetime of Narasimha Shetty, defendant No.8 managed to get executed a settlement deed dated 21.04.1969 regarding the suit property in her favour and the said deed is not acted upon. The plaintiff and the defendants are the members of the Hindu Undivided Joint family and no partition is effected between them. The plaintiff requested the defendants to effect a partition, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the entire averments made in the plaint and sought for partition and defendant Nos.2 to 7 have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Defendants No.8 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that Narasimha Shetty was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.8 was the only issue, and daughter of late Narasimha Shetty. The said Narasimha Shetty out of love and affection towards defendant No.8, had settled the suit properties, and some other properties in favour of defendant No.8 as per the registered settlement (Vyavastha Patra) deed dated 21.04.1969. Under the settlement deed, he made two schedules i.e., ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, and that so for as the ‘B’ schedule properties is concerned, he had put - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 defendant No.8 in actual possession thereof, immediately after her absolutely and for ever; having accepted the settlement deed and arrangement, defendant No.8 entered upon the possession of the ‘B’ schedule properties and is enjoying the same. In the ‘A’ schedule of settlement deed, Narasimha Shetty has settled the same in favour of defendant No.8 absolutely retaining therein the right to enjoy the same during his lifetime and defendant No.8 became the absolute owner of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties by a settlement deed dated 21.04.1969. Since 1969, defendant No.8 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as an absolute owner and the plaintiff did not challenge the settlement deed executed by Narasimha Shetty. It is also contended that Narasimha Shetty died on 31.08.1993. After his demise, defendant No.8 became the absolute owner of ‘A’ schedule properties and she came in possession of ‘A’ schedule properties. It is contended that defendant No.8 filed a suit in O.S.No.439/1989, during the lifetime of Narasimha Shetty, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 as he has also forfeited his life estate retained by him on account of various collusive documents. The said suit was withdrawn on 26.09.1993 and defendant No.8 filed another suit in O.S.No.630/1993 for a relief of possession. As a counter blast to the suit in O.S.No.630/1993, the plaintiff filed this instant suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the relevant issues, and an additional issues. 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 34 documents as Exs.P1 to P34. In rebuttal, defendant No.8 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3, and marked 3 documents as Exs.D1 to D3. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides and after assessing the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 08.04.2008. 3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.90/2004, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.35/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, framed the relevant points for consideration. 3.5. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 30.11.2018. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are the members of the Hindu Undivided joint family, and no partition is effected. He submits that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by Narasimha Shetty. After his demise, the plaintiff and the other defendants have succeeded to the suit schedule properties. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Courts below, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He also submits that defendant No.8 has not proved the execution of Ex.D3 i.e., settlement deed alleged to have been executed by the late Narasimha Shetty in favour of defendant No.8. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 7. There is no dispute that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by Narasimha Shetty. During his lifetime, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No.8, dated 21.04.1969. By virtue of settlement deed, ‘B’ schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.8 and ‘A’ schedule properties were settled in favour of defendant No.8, but he has retained the possession of the same till his lifetime. Admittedly, Narasimha Shetty died on 31.08.1993. After his demise, defendant No.8 became the absolute owner of the said properties by virtue of settlement deed dated 21.04.1969. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not challenge the settlement deed dated 21.04.1969. As of the date of filing the suit, the suit schedule properties were not the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant No.8 had acquired the suit schedule properties by virtue of Ex.D3. Based on Ex.D3, the name of defendant No.8 was entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff did not challenge the revenue entries transferred - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 in the name of defendant No.8. The Trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff, and the defendants and are available for partition, and held that the defendants have proved that defendant No.8 has acquired the said properties through the settlement deed dated 21.04.1969 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law arises for my consideration in this appeal. I concur with the findings recorded by both the courts below. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35256 RSA No. 406 of 2019 8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) This Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB