- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1051/2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. MALLESHAPPA S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN 572137. 2. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN 572137. 3. JAYAMMA W/O KITTAPPA D/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O KENCHAGANAHALLI KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK 572137. 4. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE RANGANAATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN 572137. 5. CHANDRAKALA D/O LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O KAREKYANTHANAHALLI HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KESHAV R. AGNIHOTRI, ADV.,) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 AND: 1. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS R/O HOSURU, GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK 572137. 2. SAKAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA DEAD BY HER LRS. a. S.J. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE JUNJANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS PROP PRAVEEN LODGE R/AT VIDHYANAGARA SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. b. S.J. RAJANNA S/O LATE JUNJANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS PROP PRAVEEN LODGE R/AT VIDHYANAGARA SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. c. S.J. VASANTH KUMAR S/O LATE JUNJANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. d. S.J. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE JUNJANNA W/O CHIKKAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. e. S.J. ANASUYAMMA D/O LATE JUNJANNA W/O THIMMANNA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT VIDHYANAGARA SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 3. MALLAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA W/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 4. YASHODHAMMA W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/O TAVAREKERE, SIRA TOWN 572137. 5. LAKSHMAKKA (JUNIOR WIFE) W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 6. MANJUNATHAGOWDA S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 7. MALLESHAPPA S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 8. VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NEAR GOPALAPURA PRASANNA TALKIES CHITRADURGA TOWN. 9. LAKSHMAKKA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O SANTHEPETE AND ALSO BHUTHAKATANAHALLI LAND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 10. MALLESHAPPA S/O LATE PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O VIDYANAGARA SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 11. S.P. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O BALAJI NAGARA SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 12. PUTTARANGAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA D/O LATE PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O BHUVANAHALLI SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 13. MALLAMMA W/O LATE SEENAPPA D/O LATE PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BHUVANAHALLI SIRA TOWN 572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 14. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B. NO.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERESHA K, ADV., FOR R9 , R11 AND R13) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.123/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.123/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SIRA, CONSEQUENTLY DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THUS ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present regular first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2022 in O.S.No.123/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short). By the impugned judgment and decree the trial Court dismissed the suit for partition and separate possession. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 Genealogical Tree Puttamma (Defendant No.1) Malleshappa (Plaintiff No.1) Malleshappa (Defendant No.10) Sakamma (Defendant No.2) Bhagyamma (Plaintiff No.2) S.P.Shankarappa (Defendant No.11) Mallamma (Defendant No.3) Jayamma (Plaintiff No.3) Puttarangamma (Defendant No.12) Yashodhamma (Defendant No.4) Lakkamma (Plaintiff No.4) Mallamma (Defendant No.13) Lakshmakka (Junior Wife) (Defendant No.5) Chandrakala (Plaintiff No.5) Manjunathagowda (Defendant No.6) Malleshappa (Defendant No.7) Vijayamma (Defendant No.8) Lakshmakka (Defendant No.9) 3. The original propositus had 3 children Rangappa, Sannegowda and Parvethegowda. The plaintiffs are the children of Sannegowda. Defendant Nos.1 to 9 are Mallegowda (Original Propositus Rangappa Sannegowda Parvethegowda - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 the children of Rangappa. Defendant Nos.10 to 13 are the children of Parvethegowda. 4. The suit was for partition and separate possession seeking 1/3rd share in Sy.No.88 measuring 7 acres 33 guntas situated at Mudigere Kaval, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property' for short). The plaintiffs aver that the suit property was purchased under a registered sale deed in the name of their brother late Parvathegowda since Rangappa and Sannegowda were illiterates and Parvathegowda was an educated person. It is averred that during the lifetime of Rangappa, Sannegowda and Parvathegowda, the suit property was in their joint possession and enjoyment and hence, they are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the trial Court, defendants Nos.1 & 3 were placed exparte. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 died and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 her legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2(a) to (e) and defendant Nos.4 to 14 have appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement interalia admitting the relationship between the parties. The defendants contended that the suit property is not the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3, but an exclusive self acquired property of Parvathegowda, who is the father of defendant Nos.10 to 13. It was averred that the suit property was a Government land, which was granted in favour of one Giriyanna. During the lifetime of Giriyanna, he transferred his right and interest over the suit property in favour of Parvathegowda and pursuant to which, the name of Parvathegowda was entered in the revenue records. It is averred that from the date of the purchase, the name of Parvathegowda has been entered and he was in possession of the suit property. 6. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed necessary issues. The trial Court, by considering the oral - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 and documentary evidence, observed that the plaintiffs, who seek for partition and separate possession, have failed to establish that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13 are the joint family members and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial Court observed that the suit property is not the ancestral property, but the self-acquired property of Parvathegowda and by the judgment and decree dismissed the suit. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.9 to 13. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the trial Court has failed to consider that the defendants have not produced any sale deed to indicate that the suit property was purchased by Parvathegowda. It is submitted that the purchase in the name of Parvathegowda is for the benefit of the joint family and not the exclusive property of Parvathegowda, which was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 erroneously considered by the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the suit property was the ancestral property and the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.9 to 13 justifies the judgment and decree of the trial Court and submits that the same does not warrant any interference. 10. Memo is filed by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 13 stating that respondent Nos.10 & 12 (the children of deceased Parvathegowda) are deceased. Sri.S.P.Shankarappa, who is respondent No.11 represents their interest. In light of the same, impleading their legal representatives is deemed unnecessary. 11. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 and separate possession and whether the same warrants any interference by this Court? 12. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the suit property was purchased in the name of Parvathegowda under the registered sale deed as could be seen from the plaint averments itself. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, though the sale deed stands in the name of late Parvathegowda, the suit property is the joint family property of Rangappa, Sannegowda and Parvathegowda and it is purchased from the joint family income. 13. The law is well settled that there is no presumption that a property being a joint family property only on account of an existence of a joint Hindu family. It is also a settled law that a person, who asserts that the particular property is a joint family property, it is upon him to prove that there was Nucleus with which the joint family property could have been acquired. It is only when the said presumption is discharged, the onus shifts on the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 person who claims it to be the self-acquired property to prove that he has purchased with his own income. 14. The plaintiffs who stated that the sale deed though stands in the name of Parvathegowda, it is acquired on behalf of the joint family, there are no materials forthcoming to substantiate their contention. Exs.D-22 & 23, the index of land and records of rights indicate the name of Parvathegowda. In the absence of proof of nucleus, the presumption is in favour of the self acquisition by Parvathegowda. 15. It is also a well settled law that a mere mutation entry in the name of a particular person would not confer right, title and interest over the property. But in the present facts, the dispute is not about the title of Parvathegowda, what is disputed is the purchase made in the name of Parvathegowda is for the benefit of the joint family. In these circumstances, the suit property, which is standing in the name of Parvathegowda for more than 66 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30051 R.F.A. No.1051/2022 years i.e., from 1948-49 indicates that the suit property is acquired by Parvathegowda. In the absence of any evidence to show the nucleus in the hands of the sons of Mallegowda, the plaintiffs were not entitled for share in the suit property, which is rightly appreciated by the trial Court and the same does not warrant any interference and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court passes the following: ORDER The Regular First Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself and the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3