- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2013 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2013 IN RSA No. 471/2013 BETWEEN: SMT. MARIMADAMMA @ SANNAMMA, W/O LATE K.SIDDASHETTY, AGED 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K G SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SOMASHEKARA KARISHETTY, S/O LATE K.SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 2. CHANDRASHEKARAMAHADEVASHETTY, S/O LATE K.SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L RAJA FOR R1 & R2., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.41/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MALAVALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2003 PASSED IN OS.NO.132/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) ALAVALLI. IN RSA NO. 494/2013 BETWEEN: SRI S. MADASHETTY, S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY, AGED 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K G SADASHIVAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SOMASHEKARA KARISHETTY, S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 2. CHANDRASHEKARA S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, *Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 07.01.2026 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 3. SMT. MARIMADAMMA @ H. SANNAMMA W/O SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L RAJA FOR R1 & R2., ADVOCATE R3 SERVED) THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 29.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.79/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.12.2003 PASSED IN OS.NO.103/1999 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MALAVALLI. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT RSA.No.471/2013 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012, passed in R.A.No.41/2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli and the judgment and decree *Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 07.01.2026 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 dated 10.12.2003, passed in O.S.No.132/1992 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malavalli. 2. RSA.No.494/2013 is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012, passed in R.A.No.79/2006 by the learned by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, and the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006, passed in O.S.No.103/1999 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malavalli. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. In RSA.No.471/2013, the appellant was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.1 and respondent No.2 was defendant No.3. In RSA.No.494/2013, the appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents No.1 and 2 were the defendants. Respondent No.3 in RSA.No.494/2013 is the appellant in RSA.No.471/2013. 4. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 In O.S.No.132/1992. 5. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. One K.Siddasetty is the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.3. He married Mahadevamma as per the customs prevailing in their community. After her demise, K.Siddasetty married to defendant No.2 on 13.03.1969. It is contended that the plaintiff's grand father died approximately 15 years ago, and defendant No.1, changed the katha in his name and started living separately showing a hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 attempted to sell the ancestral properties without the consent of the plaintiffs. It is contended that in December 1991, defendant No.1 got the Katha changed in the name of defendant No.2. It is contended that defendant No.2 is a stranger to the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs’ requested the defendants to effect a partition for which defendant No.1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 turned deaf ear, and the panchayat held was of no avail. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the plaintiffs suppressed the true facts. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of a necessary parties and misjoinder of parties. It is contended that the suit is filed only to harass the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiffs have not declared anything regarding the other properties that were alienated by the plaintiffs with one Siddamma as the guardian of the minor plaintiffs. The suit for partition is not maintainable, and it is contended that defendant No.1 is the husband of defendant No.2, who performed the posthumous rituals incurring the loan. Defendant No.1 was suffering from leprosy and the other ailments. It is contended that the plaintiff did not choose to come - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 forward to take care of defendant No.1 and perform the last rituals. 7. It is contended that defendant No.2 is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1, through his first wife i.e, Devamma. The paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs or father-in-law of the defendant had distributed the family properties among the plaintiffs, making the guardian one Siddamma, and allotted the properties bearing Sy.No.642/A1, 637/3, 32/2, 33/B, 72/B to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 with defendant No.2 was put in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and Katha was changed to their respective names. The plaintiff sold the properties fee to their share on attaining the age of majority. The suit schedule properties were sold for legal necessity under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1992 in favour of one Madashetty for a valuable consideration, and Madashetty is in possession and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. In.O.S.No.103/1999 8. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is contended that the plaintiffs purchased the suit properties on 14.07.1992 for a valuable consideration of Rs.38,000/-, Rs.38,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit properties. The vendor of the plaintiff had exclusive right, title and interest over the suit properties. The defendants are attempting to trespass over the suit properties. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 9. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The possession and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties, and the exclusive right and interest of the vendor of the plaintiff is denied. It is contended that, defendants had filed a suit in O.S.No.132/1992 for partition and separate possession. It is contended that the defendants had objected to the revenue entries made in the plaintiff name and the same was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 13.06.1997. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 10. The trial Court, in both the suits, framed the following issues:- In.O.S.No.132/1992 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2. If so, whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the second defendant proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased first defendant as contended in para 16 of her written statement? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 4. Whether the second defendant proves that herself and her deceased husband (first defendant) have sold the suit schedule properties in favour of S.Madashetty under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1992 for legal necessity? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed? 6. What order or decree? In.O.S.No.103/1999 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.07.1992? 2.Whether the plaintiff proves his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 3.Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration? 5. What decree or order? 11. The plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1, one witness was examined as PW2 and 22 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. In rebuttal, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 defendant No.2 was examined as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked 15 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D15. 12. The plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and marked 8 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. 13. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues in O.S.No.103/1999, i.e., issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, issue No.4 partly in the affirmative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part vide judgment dated 18.02.2006. It is ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title and possession to the extent the vendor of the plaintiff is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 entitled in the suit properties as per the judgment in O.S.No.132/1992 and accordingly, entitled only to a 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties. 14. The trial Court answered issues in O.S.No.132/1992, i.e., issue Nos.1, 2, 5 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 10.12.2003. It is ordered that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 each are entitled to a 4/9th share of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.2 is entitled to a 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties. 15. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 aggrieved, by the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2003 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.41/2006, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 filed an appeal in R.A.No.79/2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 16. The first appellate Court clubbed both the appeals, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the following common points for consideration 1. Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992 proved that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that, she is legal wedded wife of decease 1st defendant and herself and deceased husband (1st defendant O.S.132/92) have sold suit schedule properties , in favour of the S.Madashetty under register sale deed dated;17.07.1992 for their legal necessity? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for in the plaint? 4. Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/99 proves he is a absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on the basis of registered sale deed dated:14.07.1992 from that date he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants in the suit schedule property? - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 6. Whether the plaintiff are entitled relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit? 7. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court calls any interference by this court? 8. What order or decree? 17. The first appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1, 3 and 6 in the affirmative, point Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 in the negative and point No.8 as per the final order. The appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2012. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial Courts were confirmed. 18. Defendant No.2, in O.S.No.132/1992 aggrieved, by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.41/2006 preferred a second appeal in R.S.A.No.471/2013, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 aggrieved by the impugned judgment in R.A.No.79/2006 filed a second appeal in RSA.No.494/2013. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 is also appearing for defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992, heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992. 20. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 submits that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule properties from defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992. Based on the registered sale deed, the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are not amenable to the partition in view of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999. He also submits that, the first appellate Court, considering the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.103/1999. He submits that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was also under a challenge in R.A.No.41/2006. He submits that the Courts - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992 submits that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999, and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992. He also submits that both the Courts below have protected the interest of the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999. He submits that the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999, is entitled to a share of his vendor. He submits that both Courts below have rightly considered the evidence on record, and passed the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 22. This Court, admitted the appeals, to consider the following substantial questions of law: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 In RSA.No.494/2013 dated 27.06.2014. 1. Whether the Courts below are right in deciding the suit based on the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992 without its independent finding? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was binding on the Trial Court? Following substantial question of law in RSA.No.471/2013 1. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that, the suit properties are joint family properties and there is a joint family status in existence inspite of the fact that there was severance of status of the joint family on 22.01.1971? 2. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that, the suit of the respondents maintainable during the life time of K.Siddashetty as he was enjoying his absolute properties subsequent to settlement deed dated 22.01.1971? 3. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that, the appellant is only entitled for 1/9th share in the suit properties inspite of proving the fact that she is the wife of K.Siddashetty? - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 4. Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit for partition inspite of the fact that K.Siddashetty the father of the respondents succeeded to the estate of Mandi Karishetty as a successor in interest? Regarding Substantial Questions of Law: 23. That all the substantial questions of law are interrelated with each other and are taken for common discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts. 24. The plaintiff, in O.S.No.132/1992 filed a suit for partition and separate possession, contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. No partition is effected between the parties to the suit. The defence of the defendants is that, there was a prior partition, and in the said partition, the property bearing Sy.No.642/A1, 637/3, 32/2, 33/B and 72/B fell to the share of the plaintiffs, and the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the defendant's husband. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 25. Defendant No.1, along with defendant No.2 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the katha was effected in the name of the defendants. The defence of the defendants is that the said fact was denied by the plaintiff contending that there are no family arrangements, as contended by the defendants between the parties to the suit, and further, the defendants, to prove that there was a prior partition, defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 examined herself as DW1. She deposed that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 26. To prove the prior partition, defendant No.2 has not produced any documents to demonstrate that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. When the defendants have taken a specific defence regarding the prior partition, the burden is on the defendants to establish that there was a prior partition. In the absence of the documents, the Courts below have held that the suit schedule properties are the joint family - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and no partition is effected between the parties to the suit by metes and bounds. The trial Court has decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 each a 4/9th share in the suit schedule properties and defendant No.2 entitled to 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties. 27. The first appellate Court, considering the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 132/1992 held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992. The plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 had purchased the undivided share of defendant No.2. The first appellate Court, considering the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992, has protected the interest of the purchaser and held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 is entitled to a share of defendant No.2 to the extent of 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties. Both the Courts below, have considered the entire - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 evidence on record, and rightly passed the impugned judgments. 28. As observed above, defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 has failed to prove the prior partition, and the joint family status is in existence as of today. 29. In view of the above discussions, I answer the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in RSA.No.494/2013 are answered in the affirmative. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 4 in RSA.No.471/2013 in the affirmative. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Appeals are dismissed. 2. The judgments and decrees passed in R.A.No.41/2006, and R.A.No.79/2006 dated 29.11.2012 on file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013 and JMFC, Malavalli and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 dated 10.12.2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Malavalli, and the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Malavalli, passed in O.S.No.103/1999, are hereby confirmed. 3. No order as to the costs. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2014 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB,RCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7