- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.172 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. B.P. VEERESH S/O B. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. B.P. SHIVAKUMAR S/O D.B. PARAMESHWRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TLAUK-577 427. 3. SMT. B.P. GAYATHRI D/O D.B. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.50, 5TH CROSS DEVARASANDRA, K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560 036. 4. SMT. B.P.KAVITHA D/O D.B.PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O TUDANUR VILLAGE SAMANAHALLI POST ANAVATTI HOBLI SORABA TALUK-577 429. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - B.P. VEERESH …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE K PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. BYRESHA S/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. KISHOR S/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 4. SMT. POORNIMA D/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. SMT. HEMA D/O LATE K. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 6. K. SHUBHAPPA S/O BORAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 7. K. RAVI S/O BORAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 8. K. PALAKSHAPPA S/O BORAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 CHIKKAJOGIHALLI POST ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A. NO.67/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.4/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPUA. 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 and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the sale dated 15.12.1959 executed by their grand-father Mallappa in favour of Nagamma is fraudulent, void and not binding on them. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and denied other averments averred in the plaint. 5. The Trial Court given an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and also considering documents Exs.P1 to P14 and Exs.D1 to D40, answered all the issues as ‘negative’. But, while answering issue No.3 comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation. 6. The said finding is challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.67/2019. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been set out in the appeal, formulated the point and even considering the application filed for amendment as well as additional evidence and so also the sale deed dated 15.12.1959, formulated the points whether the said sale deed is illegal, void, fraudulent and fabricated, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and possession and whether it requires interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 7. The First Appellate Court having considered the pleadings, written statement as well as reasoning of the Trial Court, even taken note of the fact that property was originally purchased in the year 1930 by Rudrappa as per Ex.P1-sale deed which has been narrated in paragraph No.23 and also taken note of the fact that subsequently, property was sold in the year 1959 and when the disputed sale deed was executed, even Basappa was no more and his wife Gangamma has succeeded him, so also, his another brother Mallappa. It is Gangamma, wife of Basappa and Mallappa, who have jointly executed the sale deed of the year 1959 in favour of mother of defendant No.1-Smt. Nagamma and the said sale deed at Ex.P2 was also taken note of. 8. The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.24 observed that in Ex.P2-sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that since they have borrowed the loan from Issuru Society by mortgaging the said property and they require the amount to repay the loan, they jointly sold the suit property in favour of Nagamma. So, for the joint family necessities and to repay the loan borrowed from Issuru Society, Mallappa and Gangamma, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 who are eldest members of two branches have jointly sold the property. The First Appellate Court also observed that suit is filed by the plaintiff’s father earlier in O.S.No.170/2023 in paragraph No.25 and in paragraph No.26, in detail taken note of the fact that when the father had filed the suit earlier, excluded the suit schedule property and also taken note of the fact that there was no reason for the plaintiffs’ father to file the suit only in respect of 1 acre of land by admitting the sale executed by his mother and detailed order was passed. However, taken note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court with regard to the fact that suit is barred by limitation is concerned. 9. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to notice of this Court that when the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation, ought not to have confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and the said contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. Even though the First Appellate Court comes to an other conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation, the First Appellate Court taken note - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 of the nature of the document executed by the mother as well as said Mallappa i.e., Ex.P2 and also taken note of the fact that when the father had filed the suit earlier, excluded the suit schedule property having the knowledge about the sale and the same was not questioned in the earlier suit and well reasoned order has been passed by the First Appellate Court while confirming the judgment, even though not agreed with the reason of the Trial Court regarding the limitation is concerned. 10. When such being the case and well reasoned order has been passed by the First Appellate Court considering the material available on record and reassessed both oral and documentary evidence as well as pleadings and right of the parties, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law and both the Courts have taken note of question of fact and question of law. Hence, there is no ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41177 RSA No. 172 of 2024 ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32