- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.289 OF 2023 (PA/DE/IN) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1689 OF 2022 IN RSA No. 289/2023 BETWEEN: SRI N.V.MUNIREDDY S/O DODDA CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI-562 101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI THRIMURTHY K P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI-562 101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK. 3. SRI.GANGADHARAPPA @ GANGADHARAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 4. SMT.PADMAMMA W/O GANGADHARAPPA @ GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 6. KAVYA D/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI-562 101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2022 PASSED IN RA No.120/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2018 PASSED IN OS No.302/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR. IN RSA NO. 1689/2022 BETWEEN: LATE SRI PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH (DEAD BY HIS LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORD) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 1. SRI GANGADHARAPPA @ GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. SMT PADMAMMA W/O GANGADHARAPPA @ GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR S/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 4. KAVYA D/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, THE ABOVE APPELLANTS ARE ALL R/AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562103 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA @ PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 R/AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562103 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 3. SRI N V MUNIREDDY S/O DODDA CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562103. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI K.P.THRIMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2022 PASSED IN RA No.120/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2018 PASSED IN OS No.302/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri K.P.Thrimurthy, Sri S.A. Sudheendra, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri K.Shivashankar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents in both the appeals. 2. These two appeals came to be admitted by the order dated 21.07.2025 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court justified in decreeing the suit for partition? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court justified in over- looking the partition which effected in the year 1958? 3. For the sake of convenience and for certainty, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 4. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under: Defendant No.4 has filed RSA No.289/2023 and defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have filed RSA No.1689/2022 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.302/2008 dated 05.07.2018 on the file of the I Addl. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura and R.A.No.120/2018 dated 17.08.2022 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapura. 5. Plaintiffs filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the immovable properties mentioned below, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’. “(1) All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.74, measuring an extent of 0-19 guntas, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on: East by : Inamthi land, West by : D.Sathyanarayana Shetty’s land, North by : Railway road, South by : Raja Kaluve. (2) Property bearing Sy.No.73, measuring an extent of 0-10¾ guntas, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on: East by : Land of N.C.Munireddy, West by : Bhaskara’s land, North by : PWD road, South by : Railway track. (3) Property bearing HL No.1/94, measuring East to West 18 feet, North to South 13½ feet, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 (4) Property bearing HL No.2-30/1, measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 30 feet, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. 6. At the outset, even though appeals came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RSA No.289/2023 files a memo reporting to the Court that on 22.05.2020 defendant No.2 and his children have sold the item No.1 of the suit property in favour of Smt.R.Padma. 7. Likewise, defendant No.4 has purchased the item No.2 of the suit properties to the extent of 3/4th of the land. Likewise, defendant No.2 who is appellant No.2 before this Court in RSA No.1689/2022 has entered into agreement of sale with Smt.Anita. 8. In other words, the parties have meddled with the suit property pending litigation. 9. When the first defendant has already sold item No.4 of the suit property on 22.05.2020, suppressing such a sale and filing the appeal in RSA No.1689/2022 itself is incorrect and on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 the score of suppression of material facts itself the appeal needs to be dismissed. 10. Nevertheless, the substantial questions of law raised are with regard to the justification of decreeing of the suit for partition and overlooking the earlier partition effected in the year 1958. 11. In that regard, this Court heard the arguments of the parties and noted that before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court no cogent material is placed on record to establish the earlier partition said to have been effected in the year 1958. 12. Revenue entries were not mutated soon after the said oral partition, nor any witnesses have been examined to establish the oral partition. 13. On the contrary, plaintiff has taken a specific stand that there was no partition at all in respect of the suit property and it is the defendants who have taken up the contention that there was an earlier partition in the year 1958. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 14. In that regard, cross-examination of D.W-1 assumes importance. 15. All that the Trial Court got misled with regard to 1958 partition is that, the defendant No.1 acquired at a partition in the year 1958 some properties which are subject matter of the suit properties which are vide Item Nos. 1 to 4. 16. The Trial Court got misdirected itself that in the said partition, the plaintiffs have also got share in the suit property. 17. Defendant No.1 acquired the suit property is only under the partition in the year 1958 and thereafter there is no partition among the parties. 18. Therefore, First Appellate Court considering the fact that the source for acquiring the property by the defendant No.1 is by way of a partition that got effected in the year 1958 and therefore set-right the mistake committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff inasmuch as there was no partition that got effected among the plaintiff and defendants after the defendant No.1 acquired the suit item Nos.1 to 4 under the partition in the year 1958. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 19. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court which has set right the factual mistake committed by the Trial Court in holding that there was an earlier partition in the year 1958 and therefore, suit for second partition is not maintainable. 20. No other point is urged on behalf of the appellants to contra. 21. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law raised in both the appeals are to be answered against the appellants and in favour of the plaintiff. 22. Hence following: ORDER (i) Appeals are meritless and are hereby dismissed. (ii) However, the defendant No.4 being the purchaser of portion of Item No. 2, may work out his remedy before the Final Decree Court seeking equitable partition in allotting the said property to him in accordance with law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37008 RSA No. 289 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1689 of 2022 (iii) Insofar as Item No. 1 is concerned, since it is defendant No.2 who sold the property, the said sale will be subject to the result of the suit already filed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90