- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1772 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O NANJEGOWDA D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT PIN:573201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. A.N. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 2. SMT DYAVAMMA W/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 3. NANJEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 SMT AVVAYAMMA , W/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT PIN:573201 4. SRI CHANDRU S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT PIN:573201 5. SRI SHEKARA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT PIN:573201 6. SRI SHIVANNA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANUGAVALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT PIN:573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.R.SHARATH GOWDA ADV FOR SIR.B.RANGAWAMY ADV FOR R1 AND R2, R3,R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED V/O DATED 08.01.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R4 STANDS ABATED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD.20.6.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD.6.4.2010 PASSED IN O.S.No.81/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2015 passed in R.A.No. 67/2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Hassan, and the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 passed in O.S.No.81/2004 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hassan. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, and they inherited the suit schedule properties from their grandfather i.e, Honngirigowda. The suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the plaintiff's grandfather. It is contended that, the defendants created a document said to be a settlement deed dated 18.03.1997 behind the back of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants are members of a Hindu undivided family, and no partition has been effected by metes and bounds. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 arises for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the petition. It is contended that after the demise of the plaintiff’s father, defendant No. 1 and 2 and Honnagiri Gowda were in a joint family, and Honnagiri Gowda was managing the family affairs. The father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 by name Nanjegowda, the husband of defendant No.2 died about 30-35 years back. After his death, Honnagiri Gowda looked after the affairs of the joint family. After his demise, there was a settlement deed in 1997 and the parties acted upon the alleged settlement, and name of the respective parties entered in the revenue records. Based on the settlement, as of the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule properties were not ancestral properties and the parties were not members of a Hindu undivided family. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The plaintiff to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW1, examined one witness as PW2, and marked 26 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, 2 witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3, and 9 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9. 7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing the parties and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 06.04.2010. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.81/2004 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.67/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Hassan. The first appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dimissed the appeal vide judgment dated 20.06.2015 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 Court. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, and the defendants, and no partition has been effected between the parties by metes and bounds. The trial Court committed an error in placing reliance on Ex.D5, and coming to a wrong conclusion that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. Hence, he submits that by Ex.D5, i.e., the settlement deed the partition was not effected equally, and even on that ground also, the suit is not liable to be dismissed. The trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, and he submits that the defendants failed to prove the contents of Ex.D5. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit. The defendants have taken a specific defense that there was a settlement deed entered into, on 18.03.1997 and the plaintiff is also a signatory to the settlement deed marked as Ex.D5 dated 18.03.1997. Furthermore, the defendants, to prove the contents of Ex.D5 have examined an attesting witness as DW2. Further, the plaintiff witness, during the course of cross examination admitted that Katha was changed in 1994, and the admission of the plaintiff witness is sufficient to hold that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the parties are in possession of the respective shares, and the Katha has been changed in the name of the respective parties. 12. The plaintiff had sold the properties, only to the extent of her share. She has admitted regarding the prior partition alleged to have been entered in 1997, vide - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 settlement deed dated 18.03.1997. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and she is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties and held that the defendants have proved that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants by a settlement deed dated 18.03.1997. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The judgments, and decrees passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. 3. No order as to the costs. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25981 RSA No. 1772 of 2015 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IA's, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21