- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.257 OF 2024 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. GANGADHARAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O KABBINAKERE VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK-571418 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SMT. RENUKAMMA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 R/O KABBINAKERE VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK-571418 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.11.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.10.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.230/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition in respect of item Nos.1 to 8 of the suit schedule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 properties, it is specifically contend that all the suit schedule properties are belongs to the ancestral and joint family of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant No.1 acquired the suit schedule properties under the family partition between himself and his brothers Onkarappa, Gududappa, Gaverangappa, Gaviyappa long ago. The suit schedule item No.7 was granted by the Government under the Dharkhast by spending funds of the joint family and enjoying the same as joint family property. It is further contend that the defendant had no absolute independent or exclusive right over the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 is the manager of the joint family properties and mismanaged the funds of the joint family and hence, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants is strained as such the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition but the defendants refused the same and hence, made the claim of legitimate share by meets and bounds. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 3. It is the contention of the defendants in O.S.No.238/2009 that the defendants have denied the entire plaint averments and further admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the plaintiff are the members of the Hindu joint family and further contend that item Nos.7 and 8 are not belongs to the joint family as contended by the plaintiff and they are the exclusive properties of the defendants. 4. The Trial Court having considered the contentions raised that since there is no dispute with regard to item Nos.1 to 6 is concerned and the same is an ancestral properties, in O.S.No.230/2009, framed the Issue that whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule item Nso.7 and 8 properties are his self acquires properties and also in O.S.No.238/2009, framed the Issue that whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for partial partition as contended in paragraph 2 of the written statement. The Trial Court having taken note of the Issues and answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 since common evidence was recorded, in paragraph 16, taken note of the admissions in respect of item Nos.7 and 8 wherein denied the fact that the plaintiffs and defendant are jointly cultivating the property. However, admitted that till today they are cultivating the land together and also admitted that in item No.7, his father - plaintiff No.1 and his brother Manjappa - plaintiff No.2 are cultivating the land and also admits that when they were cordial, in respect of item Nos.7 and 8 properties, they were jointly cultivating the land. However, admits that in item Nos.7 and 8 properties, still the plaintiffs are cultivating the land and the same was taken note of by the trial court and comes to the conclusion that in view of the said admission and evidence available on record, the principles of doctrine of blinding is applicable. Even though the property was purchased in the name of the defendant, those properties are put for common hatch pot and also taken note of the fact that the appellant herein is the kartha of the family and granted the relief in respect of all the properties in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 both O.S.Nos.230/2009 and 238/2009 and the same is challenged before the first appellate court. 5. The first appellate court also having reassessed the material on record and on perusal of the IAs, formulated the points and having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, same have been answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that the finding of the trial court is not perverse and the first appellate court also considered the admissions elicited from the mouth of witnesses i.e., DW1 and extracted in paragraph 30. Considering both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal by rejecting the IAs. Being aggrieved by the judgments of both the Courts, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that item Nos.7 and 8 are not the self acquired property and both the Courts have mainly concentrated on the admission on the part of DW1 that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 properties are stand in the name of defendant and hence, this Court has to frame substantive question of law that whether without there being any express interest of the person who acquired the properties out o his own earning is not blended the properties to the joint family property and same can be treated as joint family properties merely based on the said properties are being cultivated by the family persons and also contend that in the absence of documents to show that merely because his elder son when the father is alive can be believed that the defendant could exercise his rights as kartha of the family and both the Courts failed to take note of all these materials. Hence, it requires interference and the matter requires reconsideration by admitting the appeal and framing substantive question of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not in dispute that item Nos.1 to 6 are the ancestral and joint family properties and also it is also not in dispute that the property is also purchased in the name - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 of the appellant/defendant but when the evidence was recorded before the trial court there was an admission on the part of witness with regard to that all of the them are in joint cultivation of the property even till today and the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land and the said fact also taken note of by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that even the properties are purchased in the name of the appellant/defendant and the principle of doctrine of blinding is applicable here and those properties are put for common hatch pot. When such finding is given based on the admission available on record, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and appreciating the same and no perversity is found and no grounds to admit and frame substantive questions of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. The counsel for the appellant would submits that father is no more and he was very much alive at the time of filing of suit and only after filing of the appeal, he - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26726 RSA No. 257 of 2024 passed away. Hence, it is appropriate to enlarge the share of the parties as 1/4th instead of 1/5th. To the said contention, this Court directed that the same could be urged in the final decree proceedings while sharing the properties. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN