- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2020 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SUMANGALI D/O LATE SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. SMT. SHIVAGANGE D/O LATE SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT CHIKKA MAMSADA ANGADI BEEDHI 15TH WARD, NAYAKA STREET, GUNDLUPET TOWN - 571 111. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.LINGAMMA W/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SRI DORESWAMY NAIKA W/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI. MAHESHA NAIKA W/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NEAR A.V.M.HOSPITAL ASHWINI LAYOUT, GUNDLUPET TOWN - 571 111. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 4. SMT. CHANNAJAMMA D/O LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA MAMSADAANGADI BEEDHI, 15TH WARD, NAYAKA STREET, GUNDLUPET TOWN - 571 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPREESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.44/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ANDJMFC, GUNDLUPET DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.09/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET. 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.Muniyappa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Somashekhar Kashimath, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs namely Sumangali and Shivagange daughters of Late Siddamma against the respondents – Lingamma and others. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 Appellants are unsuccessful plaintiffs who had filed the suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.09/2012 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property): “A country tiled house with vacant space bearing assessment No.178 measuring East to West 8.20 x North to South 8.80 meters, situated at 15th Ward, Naik’s street, Chikkamamsada Beedi, Gundlupet Town, bounded on, East – Road West – House of Rachanaika North – House of Puttanaika South – House of Amavase Naika” 3. In the plaint, it is contended that Chennanaika resident of Gundlupet village and his wife by name Bodamma died long back. They had a daughter by name Muddamma and she had married to one Kullanaika and said Kullanaika is also no more. Couple Kullanaika and Muddamma had two daughters namely Puttamma and Siddamma. Said Puttamma again had two children namely Siddaraju and Chennajamma a daughter. Siddamma, Puttamma and Siddaraju have passed away. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 Therefore, the suit property which earlier belonged to Chennanaika, succeeded by Muddamma, on 25.06.1938, the suit property was purchased by Chennanaika from erstwhile owner Neelamma for a sum of Rs.100/- and when Muddamma and Kallanaiaka died, children of Muddamma and Kallanaiaka namely Puttamma and Siddamma have succeeded to the property equally. 4. Puttamma is the mother of husband of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4. Plaintiffs being the daughters of Siddamma, who are one of the daughters of Muddamma and Kullanaika are entitled for their half share in the property and when they demanded for their share in the suit property, defendants denied the same which necessitated the filing of the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit property. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 the entire contents of the plaint and so also the age of the plaintiffs. 6. They denied the factual aspect that husband name of Siddamma @ Bodamma is Chennanaika. So also they contended that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and Siddama @ Bodomma had three sons and a daughter namely Doddanaika, Police Rachanaika and Muddamma. Among them Police Rachanaika, died issueless. Among those children, Doddanaika had two children namely Chennanaika and Muthamma. Again they had two children namely Puttamma and Siddamma. 7. It is also contended in the written statement that first daughter of Muddamma namely Puttamma married one Chennanaika and that Chennanaika is the son of Doddanaika. Siddamma @ Bodamma earned certain properties which are ancestral in nature and she sold the same in favour of Ameerjan Sahukar of Gundlupet. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 8. As such, Siddama @ Bodamma or her husband did not possess any lands and Chennanaika is the grandson of said Siddama @ Bodamma. As such, they denied the right of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 9. It is further contended that Puttamma died in the year 1960, Chennanaika also died on 27.07.1984, Siddaraju died on 08.12.1991 and mother of Puttamma and Siddamma died long back. As such, there is no right for the plaintiffs to claim the suit property. 10. It is also contended that neither Siddama @ Bodamma nor her husband could not have purchased the suit property in the year 1938 as per their age and year of birth and date of death. 11. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues including the question of veracity and validity of the genealogical tree filed along with the plaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 12. After recording necessary oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Trial Judge decided issue Nos.1 to 4 in negative and issue No.5 that is the contentions urged in the written statement in favour of the defendants by answering the same in affirmative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.44/2019. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.16 to 23 as under: 16.The appellants’ counsel very much relied on the genealogical tree submitted along with the plaint. In the family tree the plaintiffs submitted that, the Chennanaika had a wife by name Siddamma @ Bodamma. The Siddamma @ Bodamma had a daughter by name Muddamma. The said fact is denied by the defendants in their written statement. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 Therefore, the initially the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that, the suit property purchased by the Chennanaika and his daughter by name Muddamma. The PW1 was cross-examined by defendants’ counsel in two times on 13.08.2015 and 04.12.2015. The PW1 in the cross-examination dated 13.08.2015 deposed as under: ಪಟಪರವರ ಗಂಡನ ೆಸರು ೆನಾಯಕ. ೆನಾಯಕರವರ ತಂೆ ೆಸರು ಸಹ ೆನಾಯಕ, ೆನಾಯಕ ಅವರ ತಂೆ ೆಸರು ೆನಾಯಕ ಎಂದು ೋ"ಸು ಾಖ$ೆಯನೂ ಸಹ ಾನು ೋ%ಲ'. ಾ(ಾ ಅ)*ಯು ಮೂಲತಃ -ೋಡಮ.ರವರ ೆಸ"ನ/' ಇೆ. -ೋಡಮ. ಎನುವವರು ಅ)*ಯನು ಕ1ಯ2ೆ3 ೆ4ೆದು2ೊಂ%ದ5ರು ಆದ7ೆ 8ಾ"ಂದ ಖ"ೕ9)ದ5ರು ಎಂದು ನನ4ೆ 4ೊ:*ಲ'. Further in the cross-examination dated 04.12.2015, once again the PW1 deposed as under: ೆನಾಯಕರವರ ತಂೆ ೆಸರು ೊಡ;ಾಯಕ ಎಂದ7ೆ ಇಲ'. ೆನಾಯಕರವರ ತಂೆ ೆಸರು ೆನಾಯಕ ೆಾಯಕರವರ ತಂೆ ೆನಾಯಕ ಅಲ' ೊಾಯಕ ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸುಳ=> ಸದ" ೆನಾಯಕ ನನ ಾ?8ಾದ ಪಟಮ. ಎನುವವರ ಗಂಡನ ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ". On perusal of the cross examination of the W1, the PW1 categorically deposed before the court that, the Chennanaika father name is Chennanaika not Doddanaika. Further as already discussed above, the Chennanaika S/o Doddanaika and Muddamma D/o Siddamma had purchased suit property Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that, the Chennanaika and his daughter Muddamma had purchased in the year 1938 is not at all tenable. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 17.The counsel for appellants argued that, the admission given by the PW1 is stray admission. Once again I have perused the PW1 admission, the PW1 was cross examined two times. In the two times the PW1 categorically deposed that, the Chennanaika’s father name is Chennanaika not Doddanaika. Therefore, the argument of the appellants counsel that, the admission of the PW1 is stray admission is not holds any water. 18.The learned counsel for the appellants by relying on the admission of the DW1 argued that, the DW1 categorically admits the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property. Further DW1 deposed that, the 4th defendant is in possession of the one part of the property. The relevant portion of the admission is as follows: (ಾ9ಯು ಾ(ಾ @ೆಡೂAB ಸC:*ನ ಪDಣFGಾಗದ/' HಾC Iೕನದ/'ಾ57ೆ, 4 ಪ1:(ಾ9ಯು ಸದ" ಸC:*ನ ಮುಂGಾಗದ ಒಂದು ರೂಂನ/' (ಾಸ(ಾLಾ57ೆ ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ", (ಾ9ಯು ಾ(ಾ @ೆಡೂAB ಸC:*ನ/' ನಮ. ಾತನ 2ಾಲ9ಂದಲೂ ಅವ7ೇ (ಾಸ ಇಾ57ೆ, ಾ?ಯವರೂ ಸ ಾ ಅ$ೆ'ೕ (ಾಸ(ಾLದ5ರು. (ಾ9ಯ ಾ?UÉ ಾ(ಾ ಸC:*ನ/' ಅಧFGಾಗ ಹN3ೆ, 2ಾರಣ2ಾ3L ಅವರು (ಾಸ(ಾLಾ57ೆ ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ"ಯಲ'. On perusal of the above said admission in toto, it reveals that, the DW1 has never admits that, the plaintiffs are in possession of the 3/4th of the suit property as pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the admission relied by the plaintiffs counsel as stated above is stray admission. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 19.The learned counsel for the respondents Sri. G.S.M., argued that, the appellants utterly failed to prove the genealogical tree submitted along with the plaint. Further he has argued that, the PW1 has categorically admits that, the Chennanaika is the husband of Puttamma. The PW1 in the cross examination deposed as under: ಮುದ5ªÀÄä ಮತು* ಕುಳ>ಾಯಕ ನನ ಾತ ಮತು* ಅOP ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ". ಾ(ಾ ಆ)*ಗಳ= 1 ೇ ಪ1:(ಾ9ಯ ಗಂಡನ ತಂೆಯ ಅ)* ಎಂದ7ೆ ಪಟಮ.ನ ಗಂಡನ ಆ)* ಎಂದು HಾR ನು%ಯುಾ*7ೆ. 20.Further the defendant in the written statement para no. 10 specifically pleaded that, the Puttamma got married to the Chennanaika who is son of Doddanaika. The admission given by the DW1 in the cross examination and the written statement averments are tallies with each other. To put it differently, on the basis of the admission given by the DW1, it reveals that, the Chennanaika S/o Doddanaika had purchased the suit property not the Chennanaika S/o Chennanaika. On perusal of the Ex. D1, the Siddaraju permanent address is Chikka Mamsada Angadi Beedhi, 15th Ward, Nayaka Street, Gundlupet Town. On perusal of the plaint schedule the suit property situated in Chikka Mamsada Angadi Beedhi, 15th Ward, Nayaka Street, Gundlupet Town. It reveals that, the Siddaraju permanently residing in the suit property in the year 1991. 21. Apart from that, the plaintiffs have produced the assessment extract Ex.P1 and 3. On perusal of the said documents, in the year 1985-86 the assessment extract stands in the name of the Chennanaika S/o Doddanaika. After death of the Chennanaika the khata transferred in the name of Lingamma W/o late - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 Siddaraju. The Lingamma is the defendant no.1 in the suit, her age was mentioned as 62 years at the time of filing of suit . On the basis of the Ex.P1 and 3 it is forthcoming that, after death of the Chennanaika the khata transferred to the Lingamma. 22.On perusal of the Ex.P1 and P2 coupled with the Ex.D1 it is forthcoming that, the Chennanaika was residing in the suit property in the year 1985-86. After death of Chennanaika, the Siddaraju was residing in the said property. After death of the Chennanaika the property transferred in the name of Lingamma W/o Siddaraju. Further the defendants have produced the tax paid receipts as per Ex.D5 to 7. On perusal of the tax paid receipts it is forthcoming that, the Lingamma has paid the taxes. The said receipts are for the year 1995 and 1979. As per the aforesaid discussion, on the basis of the documentary evidence it is forthcoming that, the suit property originally belongs to the Chennanaika S/o Doddanaika. After death of the Chennanaika S/o Doddanaika the khata transferred in the name of the defendant no.1. 23. The plaintiffs counsel very much relied on the supporting witnesses namely PW2 to 4 evidence, but the said witnesses in the cross examination never deposed that, they have seen the Muddamma’s father and mother. Therefore, the PW2 to 4 evidence not at all helps the plaintiffs to prove that Muddamma is the only daughter to the Channanaiaka and Siddamm @ Bodamma. In other words the appellants/ plaintiffs failed to prove the Genealogical tree submitted along with plaint. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 15. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed the present second appeal on the following grounds and raising substantial questions of law: GROUNDS The Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are not sustainable either in law or on the facts of the case and the same is liable to be set aside. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in considering the suit filed by the Appellants, without considering the material produced and evidence adduced on record by the Appellants and thus both the Courts below have committed an error in dismissing the suit and the Appeal of the Appellants. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the admission of DW1 that Appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property. Since the Courts below did not look into the admission of DW1, grossly erred in dismissing the suit and also the Appeal in R.A. No.44/2019. The Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants are not entitled for partition of the suit schedule property as the Appellants have failed to prove the relationship with the Respondents even though there was an admission in the evidence of DW1. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 Both the Courts did not look the fact that the Chief Affidavit of the Respondent No.3, Sri. Mahesh Naik has not revealed as who is the husband of Bodasiddamma and there is an admission in the evidence that Muddamma had two daughters namely, Puttamma and Siddamma. Also in the cross examination, the particular question with regard to the relationship between the Appellants and the Respondents, the Respondent No.3 agrees that the Appellants are the daughters of Siddamma and hence denial of the genealogical tree produced by the Appellants herein does not arise at all. The Courts below ought to have looked into the genealogical tree produced by the Appellants which clearly mentions that Bodamma is the wife of Channanaika and that the Appellants and the Respondents are related where both the Courts below ought to have looked into these facts and ought to have passed judgment and decree accordingly. The findings and reasons assigned by the Courts below are perverse, unsustainable and same is liable to be set aside. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the schedule property is a joint family property which has been in joint possession of the Appellants and Respondents herein which relationship and possession has been admitted by the DW1 in his cross examination and hence the Courts below have committed a grave error. The Courts below failed to appreciate the cross examination of DW1 wherein when it was clearly asked whether Channanaika is the husband's Bodasiddamma, he answers as wrong and when it - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 was asked what is his name, the DW1 said he is not aware of his name. This is a controversial statement given by DW1 and as such the same cannot be accepted. Hence the Courts below ought not to have appreciated the cross examination of DW1. The First Appellate Court has committed an error in not interfering with the orders passed by the Trial Court even though the interference was warranted without considering the appeal filed by the Appellants herein. Both the Courts below have not considered the issue regarding the joint ownership in respect of the suit schedule property wherein the Appellants are entitled to one half share and the Courts below have committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the Appellants have failed to prove the joint ownership & possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate that the Sale Deeds produced by the Appellants were of the year 1938 and also the genealogical tree. Both the Courts failed to consider the above documents and thus, the Courts below have committed a grave error. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the material fact produced by the Appellants, i.e., a registered document of the year 1933 which has been marked as Exhibit P2 and thus committed an error. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW (1) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed an error in in not interfering with the orders passed - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 by the Trial Court and confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? (ii) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error that the Plaintiffs/Appellants have not proved their relationship with the Respondents? (iii) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in not appreciating that the Appellants and Respondent No.4 are in joint and constructive possession of the suit schedule property, despite the admission made by the DW1. (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court has erred Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the order passed by the First Appellate Court are sustainable in law? (v) Whether both the Courts below have committed an error in not appreciating the registered document produced by the Appellants which has been marked as Exhibit P2? 16. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs resulting in miscarriage of justice. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 17. He would further contend that the First Appellate Court did not notice that the admission elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 is a stray admission which is contrary to the contents of Ex.P.2 and plaintiffs being the rustic villagers, did not understand the niceties of law and the clever cross-examination should not take away the right of the plaintiffs in the suit property. 18. He also argued that First Appellate Court was required to reappreciate the same in the light of the grounds urged in the appeal filed in RA No.44/2019 and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 19. He would also contend that when there is no dispute as to the relationship that Chennanaika being the son of Doddanaika, answering issue No.1 which is about the genuineness of genealogical tree filed along with the plaint by the Trial Court mechanically upheld by the First Appellate Court has resulted in grave injustice inasmuch - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 as the defendants are also claiming under the same branch from the first daughter of Chennanaika and Siddama @ Bodamma and Puttamma and thus sought for admitting the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned judgment by contending that in the teeth of a categorical admission by P.W.1 in the cross-examination, stating that the common prepositus is not Doddenaika but Chennanaika. The genealogical tree itself is misleading and in respect of the suit property, the plaintiffs did not get any right in the suit property and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 22. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the first issue raised by the learned Trial Judge reads as under: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the genealogical tree as mentioned in the plaint? 23. It is pertinent to note that in a case where the relationship or the common prepositus is admitted by the parties, there need not be any oral and documentary evidence placed on record to prove the relationship. But in the case on hand, in the written statement itself, there is a clear and categorical denial with regard to the relationship of the plaintiffs with the defendants. 24. Under such circumstances, it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiffs to prove that they are the members of the joint family having regard to the fact that they are also claiming under the same branch that of the common prepositus. 25. In proving such an aspect of the matter, the oral evidence would play a major role under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 26. In this regard, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Mishra reported in AIR 1959 SC 914 assumes importance. 27. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted here under for ready reference: “7. It is necessary to state here that how the conduct or external behaviour which expresses the opinion of a person coming within the meaning of Section 50 is to be proved is not stated in the section. The section merely says that such opinion is a relevant fact on the subject of relationship of one person to another in a case where the court has to form an opinion as to that relationship. Part II of the Evidence Act is headed “On Proof”. Chapter III thereof contains a fascicule of sections relating to facts which need not be proved. Then there is Chapter IV dealing with oral evidence and in it occurs Section 60 which says inter alia: “60. Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say— if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense in that manner; if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds.” If we remember that the offered item of evidence under Section 50 is conduct in the sense explained above, then there is no difficulty in holding that such conduct or outward behaviour must be proved in the manner laid down in Section 60; if the conduct relates to something which can be seen, it must be proved by the person who saw it; if it is something which can be heard, then it must be proved by the person who heard it; and so on. The conduct must be of the person who fulfils the essential conditions of Section 50, and it must be proved in the manner laid down in the provisions relating to proof. It appears to us that that portion of Section 60 which provides that the person who holds an opinion must be called to prove his opinion does not necessarily delimit the scope of Section 50 in the sense that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved only by the person whose conduct expresses the opinion. Conduct, as an external perceptible fact, may be proved either by the testimony of the person himself whose opinion is evidence under Section 50 or by some other person acquainted with the fact which express such opinion, and as the testimony must relate to external facts which constitute conduct and is given by persons personally acquainted with such facts, the testimony is in each case direct within the meaning of Section 60. This, in our opinion, is the true interrelation between Section 50 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act. In Queen Empress v. Subbarayan [(1885) ILR 9 Mad 9, 11] Hutchins, J. said: - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 “That proof of the opinion, as expressed by conduct, may be given, seems to imply that the person himself is not to be called to state his own opinion, but that, when he is dead or cannot be called, his conduct may be proved by others. The section appears to us to afford an exceptional way of proving a relationship, but by no means to prevent any person from stating a fact of which he or she has special means of knowledge.” While we agree that Section 50 affords an exceptional way of proving a relationship and by no means prevents any person from stating a fact of which he or she has special means of knowledge, we do not agree with Hutchins, J. when he says that the section seems to imply that the person whose opinion is a relevant fact cannot be called to state his own opinion as expressed by his conduct and that his conduct may be proved by others only when he is dead or cannot be called. We do not think that Section 50 puts any such limitation.” 28. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, it is specific say of P.W.1 that they belong to the common prepositus namely Chennanaika. Admittedly the genealogical tree filed in the case commences with Chennanaika not their father's name. 29. In that regard, in the cross-examination P.W.1, it is elicited as to what is the father name of Chennaniaka in the light of the contents of Ex.P.2 wherein a sale deed is - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 placed on record whereby Chennanaiaka son of Doddanaika had purchased the property in a sum Rs.100/- from his owner Neelamma. The said sale deed is of the year 1938. 30. In the written statement, there is a specific contention by furnishing necessary age, year of birth and year of death of the parties. 31. Computing said dates, in the sale deed of 1938, the common prepositus - Chennanaiak as is propounded by the plaintiffs could not have purchased the suit property. 32. Therefore, the suggestion made to P.W.1 by the learned counsel for defendants that the father name of the common prepositus namely Chennanaika is Doddanaika. However there is an emphatic denial by P.W.1 that father name of the common prepositus - Chennanaika is not Doddanaika. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 33. In the very next breath, P.W.1 also says that father name of the Chennanaika is not Doddanaika, instead father name of the Chennanaika common prepositus is Chennanaika himself. 34. In other words, what the plaintiffs are propounding is not the person who purchased the suit property under Ex.P.2. 35. When such is the factual aspect of the matter, answering issue No.1 by the Trial Court in negative against the plaintiffs and upheld by the First Appellate Court needs no interference having regard to the scope of Section 100 CPC. 36. Further, when the plaintiffs are unable to establish that they are part of the joint family, in view of the fact that Chennanaika - common prepositus who is the owner of the suit property as per Ex.P.2 is not established, claiming the right in respect of the suit property by the plaintiffs would not arise. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38134 RSA No. 1053 of 2020 37. Therefore answering issue Nos.2 to 4 against the plaintiffs and answering issue No.5 insofar as the contents of written statement having been established by the defendants with cogent and convincing evidence on record and rightly reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this appeal. 38. In view the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER i. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration. ii. Consequently appeal is dismissed. iii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT: BHK