- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1556 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O VENAKTAREDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENTOF SUBASH ROAD SRINIVASPURA TOWN KOLAR-563 135. 2. SRI. KADIRA REDDY S/OAL TE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAMAKRISHNA ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR-563 135. (WRONGLY SHOWN AS KADRI REDDY IN THE SUIT AND AS KADIREDDY IN RA) 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA @ SAKAMMA W/O KEMPARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF TANK BUDN ROAD CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN: 563125 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O K.R. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O K.R. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENT OF KABIR ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR – 563 125. 3. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O K.R. NARSIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK PIN: 563 125 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.47/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR (ITINERATING AT SRINVASAPURA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.75/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 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 second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession before the Trial Court in O.S.No.75/2012 is that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. 4. The defendants appeared and took the specific defence in the written statement that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings, since the dispute is with regard to relationship between the parties as well as nature of the properties, allowed the parties to lead evidence before the Court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 have examined first plaintiff as P.W.1 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D24 and no other witnesses have been examined. 6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the evidence of P.W.2 accepted the case of plaintiffs, in coming to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 has remained unchallenged with the relationship of plaintiffs with the defendants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is relevant fact to form an opinion with respect to relationship of the plaintiffs with the defendants and also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 that his father Sri Erappa had performed the marriage of the plaintiffs and also taken note of the conduct of said Erappa which shows that the plaintiffs are having relationship with Sri Erappa as daughters and comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are the children of Sri Erappa and sisters of the defendants and comes to the conclusion that relationship is established. With regard to the nature of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 properties is concerned, there is no serious dispute between the parties and additional issue was also considered in paragraph No.34 with regard to non-joiner of necessary parties and also taken note that plaintiffs themselves have admitted that their father had sold the property for legal necessities i.e. Sy.No.16/3 to an extent of 3.36 acres. Hence, comes to the conclusion that K.M. Narayanaswamy is not a necessary party to the suit. The Trial Court also considered issue Nos.2 and 3 together and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for 1/14th share each out of the half share which had fallen to the share of their father. The defendant No.3 being the son, he is entitled for his independent half share and 1/14th share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, defendant No.3 is entitled for 4/7th share in the suit schedule properties, remaining plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for 1/14th share and granted the relief of partition and separate possession. 7. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.47/2020. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 formulated the points whether the appellants/defendants have made out the grounds that judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse and the same requires to be set aside and considering both oral and documentary evidence and on re- appreciation comes to the conclusion that the appellants/defendants have not substantiated their contention and Trial Court has not committed any error and taken note of evidence of P.W.2 with regard to proving of relationship is concerned and in detail discussed in paragraph No.22 and comes to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 remains unchallenged in respect of the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court is that evidence of P.W.2 is not in consonance with Section 50 of the Evidence Act and there is no special means of knowledge with regard to the relationship between the parties and both the Courts ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 as to the relationship - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 is concerned. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the partition in respect of the suit schedule properties are effected in terms of the decree of the Court in R.A.Nos.90/1997 and 118/2004 dated 08.12.2004 and when the suit claim is on the pleading that the same is ancestral property, is not the suit hit by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, both the Courts failed to take note of the said fact into consideration. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, no doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to notice of this Court that the relationship of the parties is disputed, the plaintiffs in order to prove the case, relied upon document Ex.P1-Genealogical tree as well as evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.2. in the affidavit categorically stated with regard to relationship between the plaintiffs as well as defendants that they are the brothers and sisters. The counsel also vehemently contend that the first line of admission of P.W.2 is that he is not aware of the contents of the affidavit. Inspite of it, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground that the evidence of P.W.2 has remained - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 unchallenged. Having perused the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, both the Courts comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to relationship is unchallenged and the counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to notice of this Court the very evidence of P.W.2 during the course of his argument and having taken note of the same in paragraph No.4, it is stated by P.W.2 that plaintiffs are own sisters of defendant No.3 and remaining defendants are own brothers of plaintiffs because all of them are children of same parents and in the cross- examination, no doubt, it is elicited that not aware of the chief evidence and also with regard to the schedule properties concerned, but specifically pleaded and deposed that he knows the relationship between defendant No.3-Kadiri Reddy and his sisters and he voluntarily deposed and also answer is elicited that he is not aware of the exact date of their birth. He also categorically deposed that he is aged about 69 years and the resident of the same village and when Lakshmidevamana was born, he was aged about 30 years and no panchayath was held. But having perused this evidence also, nothing is elicited disputing the relationship between the plaintiffs and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 defendants, particularly the defendant No.3-Kadiri Reddy and case of the plaintiffs is also that he is the brother. When such material is considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that evidence of P.W.2 suffers from Section 50 of the Evidence Act cannot be accepted and he is a senior member of the Village and he also categorically deposed that he is aged about 69 years and even not disputed that he was not the senior member of the village and with regard to the relationship is also concerned, no specific denial was made by the defendants during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2. When such being the case, the very contention of learned counsel that evidence of P.W.2 is not in consonance with Section 50 cannot be accepted. 10. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph Nos.25 to 28 with regard to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act in the judgment in the case of BANT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. NIRANJAN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.Rs AND ANOTHER) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 75 and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 having considered the discussion made in paragraph Nos.25 and 26, in detail discussion was made with regard to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly with regard to special means of knowledge with regard to the relationship between the parties. Having perused the evidence of P.W.2, he speaks about the relationship between the parties and also about the fact that he is a senior most person in the village and he was aged about 69 years and also resident of the same village and conduct the person must fulfill the essential conditions of Section 50 and it must be proved in the manner known to law relating to proof is concerned. When his evidence is clear and he specifically pleaded with regard to the relationship between the parties is concerned and the very contention that he was not having special means of knowledge cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and both the Courts have taken note of question of fact and question of law while considering the issue between the parties, particularly with regard to relationship is concerned. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly disputes the relationship of the parties is concerned and nature of the properties is not seriously - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47281 RSA No. 1556 of 2024 disputed. When fact finding is given by both the Trial Court with regard to the relationship accepting the evidence of P.W.2, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38