- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NELHAL VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, THUMAKURU TALUK - 572 128. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAMMA W/O LATE SHASHIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. BHAGYAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NELAHAL VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TAMAKURU TALUK - 572 128. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SRI. ERANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/O NELAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 128. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY - 572 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO. 193/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO. 203/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Manjunath N. D., learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. Defendant No.1 is the appellant in this second appeal challenging the decreeing of the suit for partition passed in O.S.No.203/2018 which was confirmed in RA No.193/2020. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 3.1. A suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs seeking 1/4th share in respect of the landed properties as is described in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property. 3.2. There is no dispute as to the relationship and the nature of the property and therefore, plaintiffs demanded their 1/4th share. Same was refused by the defendants resulting in filing the suit. 4. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants entered appearance and took up the contention that there was a previous partition and shares have been already granted. 5. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and noted the fact that defendants failed to prove the previous partition and granting of the shares and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs as prayed for. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.203/2020. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and after reappreciation of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, especially taking note of the fact that there is no cogent evidence placed on record to establish the case of the defendants that there was a previous partition and shares have been granted, upheld the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS  The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial and First Appellate Court is arbitrary, biased, perverse and contrary to law. Hence, same is liable to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022  The Learned First Appellate court has mechanically dismissed the appeal filed by the Defendant no. 1, without considering the facts and materials on record.  The First Appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that, the marriage of the Plaintiffs has been solemnized about 20 years back and since then both of them are living separately along with their respective husband and children.  The learned Courts below have failed to consider the fact that Defendant no. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the name of the Plaintiff no. 1 and Rs. 2,00,00/- in the name of the Plaintiff no. 2 in Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd, Sorekunte on 16/08/2016 as fixed deposit.  The Trial Court and Learned First Appellate Court have erred in holding that, exhibits D-1 and 2 are insufficient to prove that Plaintiffs have relinquished their share over the suit schedule property in favour of Defendant no. 1 by receiving the said amount mentioned therein.  The learned Courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the fact that, the Plaintiffs have given their free and wilful consent to change the revenue entries of the schedule property in favour of the Defendant no. 1. As such the Plaintiffs have no right to claim the share in the suit schedule property. The findings recorded by both the courts are contrary to law and facts.  That both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact the evidence of PW2 i. e the Defendant no. 2 does not support the case of the Plaintiffs. The learned Courts below have erroneously placed reliance on the evidence of PW2. The said witness in her cross examination has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 deposed to the extent that the since the Plaintiffs did not find any other witness to support her case, the Defendant no. 2 was made as witness of the Plaintiff.  The Learned Trail Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in holding that, after the death of the father, the parties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.  The Courts below have erred in holding that the Defendant no. 1 has not produced any relinquishment deed and no documents were produced to prove that fixed deposit amounts are pertaining to the shares of Plaintiffs in lieu of the shares in the suit schedule properties but on the contrary, the pleadings and the evidence led by the Defendant no. 1 clearly infer that the Plaintiffs have relinquish their claim over the schedule property.  The Learned Trail Court and the First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the Defendant no. 1. The Courts below have erred in placing reliance on the exhibits P1 to 24.  The Learned First Appellate Court has not applied law in a proper manner, without appreciating the material facts has come to a conclusion and finding in favour of the Plaintiffs.” SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether the learned Trail Court and 1st Appellate Court are justified in holding that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 2. Whether the Learned Trail Court and First Appellate Court are justified in granting the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds? 3. Whether the learned Trail Court and First Appellate Court have erred by not considering the deposits made by the Appellant in the name of Respondent No. 1 & 2? 4. Whether the Learned Trail Court and First Appellate Court are justified in holding that the Appellant has failed to produce the relinquishment deed to prove that fixed deposit amounts are pertaining to the shares of Respondent No. 1 & 2 in lieu of the shares in the suit schedule property? 5. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in confirming the finding of the trial Court without dealing with all the issues and re appreciating the entire evidence on record? 6. Whether the grant of decree for partition by the learned Trial Court declaring 1/4th share in the suit properties in favour of Plaintiffs is erroneous in law and perversely contrary to evidence on record? 7. Whether the Learned Trail Court and First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the Defendant no. 1 herein? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the share of the plaintiffs have already been granted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 in a oral partition. Despite the same, plaintiffs have approached the Court with ulterior motive, taking advantage of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought for admitting the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent today. 11. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, a categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge to the effect that defendants failed to establish that there was a previous partition in the family and shares have been granted. 13. Mere oral say of the defendants would not be sufficient proof of previous partition and in granting the share to the plaintiffs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 14. No other material evidence is placed on record except the self serving testimony of defendant No.1. D.W.2 – Narasimhamurthy tried to corroborate the evidence of D.W.1. 15. Learned Trial Judge in paragraph No.16 of the judgment, has specifically noted that though he has supported the version of defendant No.1, in the cross- examination, he has admitted that suit properties are the self acquired properties of Eranna and he died intestate. 16. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any dispute as to the relationship, plaintiffs are also entitled for 1/4th share each. 17. Accordingly, judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 18. Accordingly, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32977 RSA No. 836 of 2022 ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53/CT: BHK