- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.607 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. SMT. M GANGAMMA D/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT AROKYATANAHALLI VILLAGE MAKALI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562162 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI M RAJASHEKHAR S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024 3. SRI M RAMESH S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O AROKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE MAKALI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562162 4. SRI NANJUNDE GOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.17/1, 1ST MAIN 11TH CROSS, ‘K’ BLOCK DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560010 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 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 plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that the sale deed was made on 02.06.2005. But the plaintiffs while examining before the Trial Court produced the sale deed at Ex.P9 and the same is dated 02.06.2004. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration while answering the issues involved between the parties in paragraphs 12 and 13 and also taken note of the fact that the sale deed is prior to the Central Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and finding is given that they are not the co-parceners at the time of sale deed in terms of Ex.P9, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024 thus, question of granting any such relief does not arise. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph 23, taken note of the fact that as on the date of filing of the suit, neither the plaintiffs nor any member of the family of Marappa are concerned to 31 guntas land in Survey No.4/8 of Narayanappa, which is subject matter of the sale deed dated 02.06.2004 marked at Ex.P9. Irrespective of the evidence and pleadings of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs have not claimed any type of relief with respect to the sale deed dated 02.06.2004 marked at Ex.P9 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that pleading was made particularly with regard to the sale deed dated 02.06.2005, but mistakenly produced the sale deed of 02.06.2004 as Ex.P9. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the counsel for the appellants pleaded in respect of sale deed of the year 2005, but when the evidence is adduced before the Court and produced the document of sale deed of the year 2004, that is Ex.P9 and both Trial Court and First Appellate Court taken note of the material placed before the Court particularly, the documentary evidence which is placed before the Court which shows that as on the date of the sale made in terms of Ex.P9, the plaintiffs are not the co-parceners and hence, rightly both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the case of the plaintiffs. Even though, the counsel appearing for the appellants made such submission before this Court, not produced any such sale deed before the First Appellate Court as well as this Court and finding of both the Courts is only in respect of Ex.P9 dated 02.06.2004. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51938 RSA No. 607 of 2024 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN