- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1683 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS NARASAMMA S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. NAGESH S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT DASARIGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK – 572201 3. KANAKAMMA D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA W/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT YARANE, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 AND: 1. SHIVANNA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SUJATHA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHATURA AGED ABOUT YEARS 3. SUNANDA D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA @ CHATURA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4. PUTTEGOWDA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT DASARIGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK-572201 5. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 6. SHASHIDHARA S/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE R/AT D.NO.72 AKBAR MAJID ROAD CHAMUNINAGARA R T NAGARA (POST) BNEGALURU-560032 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 7. KOMALA W/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 8. BHAVANA D/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 9. SADHANA D/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT KUVEMPU NAGARA, MYSORE-570001 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.38/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that he and the defendants constituted the Hindu undivided joint family and the suit properties are joint family properties and he is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, filed the suit for partition. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5 have divided the properties of Honnegowda through unregistered Palupatti in the year 1962 and on 26.09.1994, defendant No.1 and his family members have divided the property and hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for the relief of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 partition and separate possession and suit is also barred by limitation and suit is not properly valued and prays the Court to dismiss the suit. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and also allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in paragraph 9, it is held that nowhere, the plaintiff denied the factum of earlier partition of the year 1962 and the plaintiff did not produce any documents to show that the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of late Honnegowda and the pleadings also silent with regard to the fact that how the records of rights were got mutated to the name of the defendants. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that when specific defence was taken that already there was a partition and the same was also admitted by the plaintiff during the course of his cross-examination, the question of granting the partition once again does not arise. Hence, dismissed the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2017. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the Points and having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the cross-examination of PW1 wherein he admitted that in the year 1962, they partitioned the properties of their father and his elder brother Lingaraju sold out the property fallen to his share in favour of defendant No.1, his wife and he himself signed the said sale deed as witness. Further he admitted that the children of defendant No.1 have also partitioned their family properties through panchayath parikath and mutation entries also came into effect in M.R.No.28/1994-95 in terms of Ex.P8 which was accepted on 07.02.1995. The sons of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 himself partitioned the properties through a memorandum of partition and on the basis of the said partition, defendant No.1 and his children have mutated their names in the revenue records. Hence, it is very clear that in the year 1962 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 itself there was a partition in the family of plaintiff and subsequently, defendant No.1 and their family also got partitioned the property in the year 1994-1995 and M.R.No.28/1994-95 also substantiated the same. When assessing the case, the First Appellate Court taken note of the same in paragraphs 17 to 19 and concurred the finding of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is erroneous since the Trial Court only taken note of earlier partition which was taken place in the year 1962 but the said partition has not been acted upon and nothing is placed on record to show that the parties have acted upon according to the partition of the year 1962 and the said admission is only a stray admission and not the categorical admission. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also committed an error concurring the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial questions of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the material on record as well as the reasoning of the Trial Court, it discloses that the Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 and extracted the same in paragraph 9 and in detail taken note of the case of the plaintiff considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Trial Court also taken note of the subsequent admission of PW1 i.e., the reason for filing of the suit is only that property not transferred in the name of the plaintiff and the parties have not acted upon as per the partition of the year 1962. The Trial Court held that the material clearly discloses that even after the partition in the year 1962, defendant No.1, among their family members have also got partitioned the property and mutation entry came into existence in the year 1994- 1995 itself. The said fact was also taken note of by the First Appellate Court in paragraphs 17 to 19. When categorical admission is available in the suit that partition was effected - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47464 RSA No. 1683 of 2024 in the year 1962 itself in respect of the suit schedule properties, merely, not changing of the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff as per the said partition, he cannot file one more suit as admitted by him. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN