- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1423 OF 2014 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BASAMMA D/O SHIVALINGAPPA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: COOLI & AGRICULTURE SINCE THE PLAINTIFF IS DUMB REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND HUSBAND SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT CHIKKA KABBEGERE VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK – 577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 AND: 1. SRI KENCHAVEERAPPA S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS LAND LORD AND BUSINESS R/AT CHIKKABENNUR VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK – 577 501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M T JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FIELD U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.47/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM AND MACT-III, CHITRADURGA AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed by the complainant impugning the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2014 in O.S. No.47/2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT-III, Chitradurga. 2. The plaintiff and defendant are sister and brother, born to late Shivalingappa. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming partition in respect of the following properties:- "(a) Suit schedule "A" item no.1 property purchased from Basappa for a sum of Rs.200/- by a registered sale deed dtd.30-11-1936. (b) Suit schedule "A" item no.2 property purchased from Gowdra Nanjappa, for a sum of Rs.1,000/- by a registered sale deed dtd.19-4-1956. (c) Suit schedule "A" item no.3 property purchased from Karibasappa and his sons for a sum of Rs.1,000/- by a registered sale deed dtd.16-1-1969. (d) Suit schedule "A" item no.4 and 6 property purchased in a Vargavargi dtd.13-12-1947 from Ramappa. (e) Suit schedule "A" item no.5 property purchased from Basappa and others for a sum of Rs.1,000/- by a registered sale deed dtd.30-1-1939. (f) Suit schedule "A" item no.7 property purchased from Hulikuntachari, for a sum of Rs.900/- by a registered sale deed dtd.18-1-1944. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 (g) Suit schedule "B" item no.1 property purchased by maternal grand father in the name of Karibasappa, s/o Kenchaveerappa (defendant) for a sum of Rs.15,000/- by a registered sale deed dtd.13-07-1978. (h) Suit schedule "B" item no.2 property is not in existence as the same was demolished for extension of NH.4 by Highway authorities. (i) Suit schedule "B" item no.3 and properties are self acquisition properties of Shivalingappa. (j) Suit schedule "C" item no.1 to 8 properties are not in existence and the list is concocted." 3. The defendant took a stand that all the scheduled properties were self-acquired properties of the father and they were neither joint family properties nor inherited by the father. The father had given these properties to the defendant by a partition deed dated 01.04.1991 (Ex.D1). 4. The trial Court, having considered the pleadings, framed the following issues: "ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that partition deed dtd.1-4-1991 is not binding on her as pleaded? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of deceased Shivalingappa? 4. Whether defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? 5. Whether defendant proves that suit is not properly valued and court fee paid thereon is not just and proper? 6. Whether plaintiff proves that suit "C" schedule property are in existence and are available for partition? 7. Whether plaintiff proves that she is deaf and dumb as such she need to be represented through her next friend? 8. Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the relief as claimed? 9. What order/decree?" 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that in the partition deed dated 01.04.1991, it is mentioned that these schedule properties were joint family properties and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of the late father are incorrect. If in the document in Ex.D1 it is stated that properties were joint family properties, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 then the said properties could not have been stated to be self-acquired properties of the late father. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the judgment as well as the report. The husband of the plaintiff was himself examined in the Court in support of the case of the plaintiff as P.W.1. P.W.1 has admitted that the properties were acquired by the late father of the plaintiff and the defendant. In fact, the defendant has produced in evidence at Exhibits D3 to D8, which would evidence that the late father had acquired these properties through registered sale deeds. 7. The question which falls for consideration before this Court is, Whether merely on the basis of mentioning wrong fact in Ex.D1, the effect of registered sale deeds would be effaced? 8. The registered sale deeds are not denied and they have been admitted in evidence. When there is evidence to suggest that all the suit schedule properties were acquired by the late father by himself, the character of these scheduled - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48237-DB RFA No. 1423 of 2014 properties would not get changed by mere writing in the partition deed that these properties were joint family properties. 9. The whole case of the plaintiff/appellant hinges on the documentary evidence Ex.D1 where it is mentioned that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties which is not borne from the record. 10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that since in the partition deed the properties were described to be joint family properties, the effect of the registered sale deeds would get effaced by mentioning a wrong description. 11. The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17