- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2387 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGENDRA S/O AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SAMARTH S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MADAKKA @ AMMAYAMMA W/O LATE BYYANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SMT LALITHAMMA W/O LATE SEETHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SMT ANUSUYA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/A BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 4. SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO.6 AND NO.7 6. SREEHARI S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. SRI UMESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 8. SRI. RAMASWAMY, S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO.9 AND 12 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 9. SRI SURESH S/O LATE RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 10. SRI SEENAPPA S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 11. SRI. RANESH, S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 12. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA W/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOS. 8 TO 12 R/A NO. BEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R9 AND R10; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2024 NOTICE TO R1, R3, R11 AND R12 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024, R6 AND R7 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024, R9 AND R12 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R8) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.1646/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE II - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned petition is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1646/2005, dated 20.12.2014, passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. Family tree of the plaintiffs and defendants are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 CHOWDAPPA (Prepositus in Title to Appellant and Respondents) AJJAPPA MUNIYAPPA RAMASWAMY SEENAPPA RUKKAMMA (W/O AJJAPPA DIED) SONS OF AJJAPPA DAUGHTERS OF AJJAPPA A.LOKESH NAGENDRA MADAKKA LAKSHMAMMA LALITHAMMA INDIRAMMA ANUSUYAMMA MANJULA (DIED BY LRS) (APPELLANT) (Died) (WIFE OF RATHNAMMA AND CHILDREN FILED SUIT IN O.S.NO.744/2020) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 4. Before proceeding to hear the appeal, this Court specifically notified the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that, in view of the inordinate delay of 2,466 days in filing the appeal, the matter would be heard both on the question of delay as well as on the merits of the case. The parties were accordingly put on notice that the appeal may be dismissed not only on the ground of delay but also on merits, should the case warrant such dismissal. 5. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows; Ajjappa, the eldest son of the propositor Chowdappa, instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit was filed by Ajjappa along with his son Nagendra, his younger brother Muniyappa, and Muniyappa’s two children, who were arrayed as plaintiffs No.4 and 5. The plaintiffs collectively contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties, and that they, along with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 the other family members, constitute an undivided Hindu joint family. It was further pleaded that Ajjappa and Muniyappa, being full brothers, trace their title through their late father, Chowdappa. The plaintiffs asserted that in a family partition dated 18.08.1943, certain properties specifically item numbers 1 and 3, as well as the house property were allotted to the share of Chowdappa. They also claimed that item No.4 of the schedule was jointly purchased by Ajjappa and Muniyappa through a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1971 from one Ramaiah. Upon the demise of Chowdappa, it is the case of the plaintiffs that no partition by metes and bounds had taken place and that the entire joint family, including the branches of Ramaswamy and Seenappa (the other sons of Chowdappa), continued to hold the suit properties jointly. 6. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendant No.1 acted as the karta of the joint family and enjoyed the complete trust of the plaintiffs. Taking advantage of this trust, defendant No.1 is said to have executed a sale deed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 dated 25.08.1974, purporting to alienate 14 guntas of land from item No.4 in favour of his wife, defendant No.6, Chikka Muniyamma. The plaintiffs contended that this alienation was made without their consent and despite there being no partition in the family. It was further pointed out that defendant No.6 is the wife of Ramaswamy, the third son of Chowdappa, and the sale was orchestrated to unlawfully benefit her at the expense of the joint family estate. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking partition and separate possession. 7. On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statements. Defendant No.2 submitted a detailed written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.1. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and asserted that the suit was not maintainable, having been filed only to harass the defendants by suppressing material facts. They contended that a partition had already taken place in the year 1971- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 72, pursuant to which all parties, including the plaintiffs, had been allotted their respective shares and were in separate and exclusive possession. With specific reference to item No.4, the defendants submitted that the total extent of the property was 28.5 guntas, of which plaintiff No.1, Ajjappa, had himself sold 14.5 guntas to the wife of defendant No.1, i.e., defendant No.6, through a registered sale deed dated 25.08.1974. It was further stated that Ajjappa’s children had signed the sale deed as attesting witnesses and that the transaction was acted upon without challenge for several decades. On this basis, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 8. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. 9. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the trial court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. It relied upon admissions made by the plaintiffs during cross-examination and concluded that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 defendants had successfully established that the joint family had already undergone partition. The trial court further observed that the sale deed (Ex.D.1) executed by plaintiff No.1, Ajjappa, revealed that he had unequivocally admitted to a prior partition among the four brothers— Ajjappa, Muniyappa, Ramaswamy, and Seenappa at the time of alienating a portion of item No.4. Based on this finding, the trial court answered issue No.3 in the affirmative, holding that the factum of partition pleaded by the defendants stood proved. Consequently, the suit was dismissed in its entirety. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, while reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, initially addressed the issue of delay. He referred to the affidavit filed by plaintiff No.2, Nagendra, in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and submitted that sufficient and bona fide reasons have been furnished therein to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Emphasising that the present appeal is a first - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he submitted that this Court, as the final fact-finding authority, is duty-bound to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record independently. He therefore urged the Court to condone the delay and adjudicate the matter on merits. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.K. Prasad v. Arumugam, AIR 2001 SC 2497, wherein it was held that where sufficient cause is shown for the delay, courts should adopt a liberal approach and allow such litigants to pursue their remedies, while compensating the opposite party by awarding exemplary costs, if necessary. Invoking the ratio of the said judgment, he submitted that the delay in the present case is neither deliberate nor wanton and deserves to be condoned. 11. On the merits of the case, learned Senior Counsel contended that the trial court has erred in concluding that there was severance in the joint family. He - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 pointed out that the defendants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that a partition had taken place. He submitted that no particulars regarding the alleged partition such as the date, mode, or memorandum have been placed on record either in the pleadings or during the course of evidence. This critical omission, according to him, has been overlooked by the trial court. He further argued that the trial court appears to have placed undue reliance on the recitals in the sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1, Ajjappa, and that such recitals, standing alone, cannot constitute conclusive proof of partition, especially in the absence of supporting evidence. He asserted that this erroneous reliance has led to a perverse finding warranting interference by this Court. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.K. Lakshminarasappa (since deceased) by his L.Rs. v. B. Rudraiah & Others, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4129, to underscore that stray recitals in sale deeds, without - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 corroboration, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of partition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendants No.2 and 3 contended that the trial court has rightly relied upon the admissions elicited during the cross-examination of the plaintiffs, which go to the root of the matter and undermine their claim of continued jointness. She pointed out that the trial court, in its judgment, has specifically referred to key admissions secured during the plaintiffs’ cross-examination, which, when read in conjunction with the sale deed executed by Ajjappa (Ex.D.1), clearly establish that the family had already undergone partition. According to her, the recitals in Ex.D.1 further reinforce the existence of severance among the four sons of late Chowdappa. She argued that these materials, taken cumulatively, decisively establish that the plaintiffs and defendants were no longer members of an undivided joint family by the time the suit was filed. Given these findings, and in view of the inordinate delay of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 2466 days in filing the present appeal, she strongly opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and requested this Court not to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellants. 13. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for defendants No.2 and 3. Perused the records. 14. This Court has independently examined the pleadings and written statement filed by the rival parties. This Court has also meticulously examined the admissions elicited in the cross examination of plaintiff No.1. This Court also given its anxious consideration to the recitals in the sale deed executed by Ajjappa in favour of defendant No.6 while selling a portion of the item No.4 property. The following points would arise for consideration; i. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 ii. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court suffers from perversity or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court in appeal? iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit for partition in light of the admissions elicited during cross-examination and the recitals contained in Ex.D.1, indicating that partition had already taken place in the family? iv. What order? Finding on point No. i. 15. On the issue of limitation, this Court finds no merit in the explanation offered by plaintiff No.2 in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reasons stated therein, upon close scrutiny, do not disclose sufficient or satisfactory cause that would justify condoning an inordinate delay of 2,466 days, nearly nine years in preferring the appeal. The affidavit merely contains vague and general assertions, lacking any material particulars or documentary substantiation. In a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 matter of such prolonged delay, the law requires a credible explanation covering the entire period of delay, and not just a perfunctory statement. 16. It is significant to note that plaintiff No.2 actively contested the suit before the trial court. His evidence was recorded, and he participated fully in the proceedings. As a litigant who was aware of the progress and eventual outcome of the suit, a greater degree of diligence was expected from him in pursuing the appellate remedy, especially when adverse findings were recorded against the plaintiffs. The prolonged inaction and complete lack of initiative in filing the appeal within the prescribed period reflects gross negligence rather than any bona fide difficulty. Mere assertion of ignorance of legal advice or procedural nuances cannot constitute sufficient cause under Section 5, particularly when the delay is substantial and unexplained. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 17. This Court, therefore, is of the firm view that the explanation offered does not inspire confidence nor satisfy the legal standard for condonation of delay. Even assuming some leniency in approach, the magnitude of delay coupled with the total absence of due diligence justifies denial of indulgence. 18. In arriving at the above conclusion, this Court draws support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, AIR 2010 SC 3043 : (2010) 8 SCC 685, where the Apex Court has authoritatively held that while courts may adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach in appropriate cases, such approach cannot be stretched to defeat the substantive law of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not merely procedural but a substantive law that governs the rights and obligations of litigants. When a valuable right has accrued to one party on account of the inaction or negligence of the other, such - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 accrued right cannot be lightly set aside in the name of justice. 19. In the cited case, the Hon’ble Court observed that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a discretionary relief that must be exercised judiciously and upon well-reasoned grounds. The delay must be shown to have occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Mere laxity, inadvertence, or ignorance of law is not sufficient. The decision further clarifies that courts must not condone delays arising out of sheer negligence, as such indulgence would not only undermine the sanctity of limitation statutes but also cause injustice to the party who is entitled to benefit from the finality of litigation. 20. Applying the principles laid down in Balwant Singh to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to make out any justifiable ground to seek condonation of the inordinate - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 delay of 2,466 days. The explanation offered is neither credible nor legally tenable. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Hence, point No. (i) is answered in the affirmative, holding that the appeal is barred by limitation and that the delay is not liable to be condoned. Finding on point Nos. ii and iii: 21. In a suit for partition, the initial burden rests upon the plaintiffs to establish that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and that the parties constitute an undivided Hindu joint family. It is further incumbent upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate that they are in joint possession of the suit properties, either actual or constructive. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the character of the suit schedule properties being joint family ancestral properties. Both parties admit that items Nos.1 to 3 were allotted to late Chowdappa under a registered partition deed executed in the year 1943. It is also an admitted fact that item No.4 was - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 subsequently acquired by Ajjappa and Ramaswamy out of the income derived from the aforementioned ancestral properties. 22. In this background, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the recitals in the sale deed. The relevant portion reads as under: "£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ µÉqÀÄå¯ï £À°è PÀAqÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £À£Àß »¸ÉìUÉ §AzÀÄ D° ºÁAiÀÄÄÛ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÀ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. UÀȺÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ C¤ªÁgÀå RZÀðUÀ½UÁVAiÀÄÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉʸÁ®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß wÃj¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV dgÀÆgÁV ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¢£À µÉqÀÄå¯ï £À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ vÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄUÉ UÀªÀ£ÀðªÉÄAmï 4,500.00 £Á®ÄÌ ¸Á«gÀzÀ LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆlÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÉƧ®UÀÄ ¥ÀÆvÁð jfµÀÖç ªÉÃ¼É vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸À¨ï jf¸ÀÖçgï gÀªÀgÀ gÀÄdÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä M¦à CzÀgÀAvÉ 4,500/- gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À¨ï jf¸ÀÖçgÀæ gÀªÀgÀ gÀÄdÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ jf¸ÀÄÖç ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆlÄÖ µÉqÀÄå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ." 23. Upon a meticulous examination of the recitals contained in the registered sale deed dated 25.08.1974 (Ex.D.1), it becomes evidently clear that plaintiff No.1, Ajjappa, while alienating a portion of item No.4 in favour - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 of defendant No.6, has unequivocally acknowledged and asserted exclusive ownership over the said portion, based on a prior partition within the family. The recitals in Ex.D.1 explicitly reflect the existence of such partition and form the basis of the alienation. Once a party admits a fact in a registered document, that admission becomes binding, particularly under the evidentiary principles enshrined in Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such cases, oral evidence or pleadings contrary to the terms of a registered document are inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to negate the admissions contained therein. 24. While learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the recital, at best, binds only Ajjappa and cannot be construed as an admission of partition by the entire joint family, such an argument cannot be accepted. The relevant recital in Ex.D.1 pertains not merely to a unilateral assertion but to a conscious admission by Ajjappa that a partition had already taken place in the family, and that he was exercising his right to alienate his - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 exclusive share in item No.4 in favour of defendant No.6. This clear acknowledgment of severance in the family arrangement undermines the plaintiffs’ claim of continued jointness and entitlement to partition. 25. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the recital in Ex.D.1 is to be ignored, the oral evidence tendered by the plaintiffs themselves during cross- examination contains several material admissions that go to the root of the case. This Court finds it necessary to refer to and rely upon those admissions, which decisively establish that there was severance in the joint family. 26. Plaintiff No.2, Nagendra, in his cross- examination, has categorically admitted that there are four ancestral properties that originally belonged to the family through their predecessor, Chowdappa. He has further admitted that the plaintiffs and defendants have been residing separately in independent residential houses. He has also acknowledged that each of them is in - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 exclusive possession of their respective residential properties, and significantly, stated that the plaintiffs are not insisting on re-allotment of the houses, as they are already in exclusive possession. These admissions are consistent with and indicative of a partition that has already been acted upon, even if not formally recorded through a written document. 27. Further, with respect to item Nos.1 and 2, which are ancestral agricultural lands, plaintiff No.2 has made yet another set of critical admissions. He has admitted that the respective families are exclusively cultivating their allocated portions of land and that the income derived from such cultivation is not shared but is enjoyed separately by each family. This conduct reflects a de facto severance and independent enjoyment of shares, and completely negates the claim of joint possession or enjoyment. Such a pattern of exclusive cultivation and enjoyment of income clearly points to partition having - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 taken place, and renders the plea for partition as wholly misconceived. 28. In light of these crucial and unambiguous admissions made by plaintiff No.2 during cross- examination, the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel,that the particulars of partition were neither pleaded nor proved by the defendants cannot be sustained. It is well-settled in law that facts which are admitted do not require proof. Moreover, when such admissions go to the core of the dispute and are made by a party in their testimony, they bind the party making them and may be acted upon by the Court. 29. The admissions recorded in the present case are not vague or incidental, they are categorical and pertain directly to the question of whether the family continued to be joint. These admissions, when read in conjunction with the recitals in Ex.D.1, collectively demonstrate that there was severance in status and that - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 the parties had acted upon such severance by entering into exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. 30. On an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is fully satisfied that the defendants have succeeded in establishing that a partition had indeed taken place in the family. The sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1, Ajjappa, followed by the unequivocal admissions made by plaintiff No.2, conclusively demonstrate that the family was no longer joint in status or enjoyment, even if the revenue records continued to reflect Chowdappa's name. The intention to sever ties and the subsequent conduct of exclusive enjoyment of properties are sufficient to establish the factum of partition. 31. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. The trial court has rightly appreciated - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24257 RFA No. 2387 of 2023 both oral and documentary evidence and was fully justified in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim for partition. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case either on facts or in law and that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, point no. (ii) and (iii) are answered in the negative. Findings on point No. iv: 32. In the light of findings recorded on points No.i to iii, the regular first appeal is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK