- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O. SHIVANNA, NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 DEAD BY LRS 1(A). SHIVAGANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA 1(B). V.S.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA, 1(C). A.S POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA APPELLANTS 1(A) TO 1(C) RESIDENT OF NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 571219. 2. PALANETHRA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O SHIVANNA, ANAGONDANAHALLI, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572201 3. NANDEESHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. SHIVANNA, NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 RATHNAMMA D/O SHIVANNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 4. NETHRA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O RATHNAMMA, 5. JAGADISH S/O RATHNAMMA, 6. DRAKSHAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS D/O. SHIVANNA, SL.NO.S 4 TO 6 ARE R/O ANAGONDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.JYOTHI S. KEMPEGOUDAR; ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: C JAGADAMBA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. CHIKKANNA, ANAGONDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 TIPTUR TALUK, NOW AT JAIN INDUSTRIES, NO. 65/2, RANGANATHAPURA, III MAIN, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE 560 079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH P KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READWITH ORDER XLII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR IN RA NO.23/2011 ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR IN OS NO. 185/2010, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL WITH COSTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Jyothi S. Kempagoudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.G.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Defendants have filed the present second appeal challenging the judgment of the suit passed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 O.S.No.185/2010 which was confirmed in RA No.23/2011 whereby the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court was reversed. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. Plaintiff who is the contesting respondent before this Court filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in respect of land in Sy.No.116 which is newly numbered as Sy.No.158 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated in Anagondanahalli, Tiptur Taluk, bounded on East by property of Basavalingappa, West by land of Shivalingaiah, North by Hiduvali land and South by land of Nanjundappa, Basavaraju etc. (hereinafter referred to as suit property). 3.2. In the suit, plaintiff laid the claim stating that she is the only daughter of Chikkanna and Parvathamma and her brother was Kumar @ Shivakumar. It is her case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 that parents of the plaintiff and Kumar @ Shivakumar are no more. 3.3. According to the plaintiff, defendants are the legal representatives of one Shivanna. After the death of parents of the plaintiff and Kumar @ Shivakumar, defendants made an attempt to lay their claim over the suit property. 3.4. Plaintiff filed an application before the Tahsildar, Tiptur for transfer of revenue entries in the name of herself and same was objected. Tahsildar after enquiry, came to the conclusion that plaintiff and defendants are equally entitled to the property and directed to mutate the revenue entries in respect of the suit property in the name of plaintiff and defendants. 3.5. Defendants having denied the right, title and interest in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff, suit was necessitated and filed the suit in O.S.No.185/2010. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and denied that plaintiff is the daughter of Chikkanna and Parvathamma and sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Suit on contest, came to be dismissed by judgment dated 19.02.2011. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the factual aspects and the material evidence placed on record, raised the following points for consideration: 1. Whether suit property belongs to plaintiff alone as legal heir of Late Kumar @ Shivakumar? 2. Whether suit property belongs to plaintiff and defendant's mother Smt. Parvathamma and both the parties are having equal right in the suit property? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 3. Whether interference of this court is called for with respect of judgment and decree passed by trial court? 4. What Order? 8. On reappreciation of the material evidence especially the admissions made by D.W.1 in his cross- examination held that the admission of the defendants were sufficient enough as per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act and admitted fact need not be proved. As such, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment of the Trial Court inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 as under: 15. The defendants in their written statement they have denied case of the plaintiff and taken specific contention that on 30.04.1973 Parvathamma who is the mother of plaintiff and defendants had purchased suit property from one Chikkanna S/o Thimmegowda. Hence both the parties are having equal share in the suit property. However in order to prove this fact, the defendants have not produced any material evidence. On the other hand Ex.P1 sale deed clearly states that minor son Kumar has purchased suit property under the guardianship of his mother Parvathamma. Further in the cross examination of DW-1, he deposed as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 “PÀĪÀiÁgï JA§ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï JA§ ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ ¸ÀºÀ PÀgÉAiÀįÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DvÀ ºÀÄnÖ¤AzÀ®Æ «PÀ® ZÉÃvÀ£À. DvÀ 1987 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è wÃj PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DvÀ£À vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ aPÀÌtÚ. PÀĪÀiÁgï C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀ̤zÁÝUÀ zÁªÁ¸ÉÆvÀÛ£ÀÄß PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ£ÀÄ JA§ «6ÀAiÀÄ w½zÀÄ PÉÆArgÀvÉÛãÉ. DvÀ£À vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁzÀ ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß D PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è CeÁÕ£À ¥Á®PÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥Ánð ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. PÀĪÀiÁgï FvÀ£À vÀAzÉ aPÀÌtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ¬Ä ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä wÃj PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀjUÉ PÀĪÀiÁgï JA§ M§â£Éà UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢ dUÀzÁA§ EªÀ¼ÉƧâ¼Éà ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.” This being the evidence of 2nd defendant it can be held that 2nd defendant has categorically admitted the case of the plaintiff. 16. It is the case of the defendants that suit property was purchased by their mother, since plaintiff and defendants are children of Parvathamma, they have got equal share in the suit property. As per Ex.P1 sale deed dated 30.04.1973 and admission given by the DW-1 it goes to show that suit property was purchased by minor son Shivakumar under the guardianship of his mother Parvathamma. The DW-1 in his cross examination has also admitted that deceased Shivakumar and plaintiff are children of Chikkanna. The plaintiff has also produced death certificate of her brother Shivakumar which is marked as Ex.P6, in this document also it is stated that Shivakumar is son of Chikkanna. From these documentary and oral evidence plaintiff has proved that suit property was purchased by his minor brother Shivakumar under the guardianship of his mother Parvathamma and plaintiff and Shivakumar are children of Chikkanna. It is admitted fact that defendants are children of Shivanna. Since suit property belongs to plaintiff's brother Shivakumar, as per section 8 of Hindu Succession Act plaintiff succeeded suit property as class II heir. The defendants will not become heirs of deceased Shivakumar. Because they are the children of Shivanna and they are not full blood brothers. Hence from these documentary and oral evidence plaintiff has proved that suit property belongs to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 plaintiff alone as legal heir of Late Shivakumar. The suit schedule property not belongs to Parvathamma. Hence, I have answered point no.1 in the affirmative and point no.2 in the Negative." 9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present appeal on the following grounds and raising following substantial questions of law: GROUNDS  "The Appellants submit that the First Appellate Court grossly erred in not appreciating the facts & evidence on record while coming to the conclusion that the Respondent is entitled for decree of the suit filed by her.  The Appellants submit that the Learned First Appellate Judge has not at all looked into Ex.P1 & D1, which form the basis for arriving the conclusion by the Trial Court that the property is not the absolute property of Kumar @ Shivakumar and that the same belonged to Parvathamma and her family, and since these Appellants too are the legal heirs of Parvathamma, after demise of Kumar & Parvathamma, the Appellants and the Respondent are entitled for equal share in the above property, and hence the Respondent alone cannot be declared as owner of the above property under the pretext that she is the only legal heir of Kumar @ Shivakumar.  The Appellants submit that the First Appellate Court has probabilised the reasoning on the basis of pleadings & facts, which are not available on record. As such the impugned judgement of the First Appellate Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020  The Appellants submit that in view of inheritance and when the fact of relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendants, the question of decreeing the suit of the Respondent does not arise at all, as such the Trial Court's judgement was in accordance with law." Substantial questions of law a) Whether the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's judgement & decree? b) Whether the Appellate Court erred in probabilising its reasoning beyond pleadings & evidence on record? c) Whether the Appellate Court erred in not understanding Ex.P1 & Ex.D1 beyond their etymological meaning? 10. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has read the admission in isolation with other material evidence placed on record. Therefore, sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. It is her further arguments that plaintiff having failed to establish the relationship with the suit property as well as the family of Chikkanna and Parvathamma, is not entitled to an order of declaration as is granted by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 First Appellate Court which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment of the First Appellate Court. 13. He contends that learned Trial Judge failed to consider the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1 wherein he has specifically admitted the case of the plaintiff and same is set right by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while reappreciating the material evidence. 14. He would further emphasize that admission of a party relieves the burden on the plaintiff to establish the declaration of ownership with regard to the suit property and in the absence of any obstruction to inheritance or the succession to the suit property, plaintiff is entitled for the share in the suit property which has been rightly - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff laid a claim over the suit property as a daughter of Chikkanna and Parvathamma. Admittedly, same was denied by the defendants. 17. Therefore, it was for the plaintiff to establish that she is the daughter of Chikkanna and Parvathamma. In this regard, learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the admission elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1 wherein D.W.1 has categorically admitted that Chikkanna and Parvathamma had a daughter by name Jagadamba. 18. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it is a stray admission. In that regard, it is necessary for this Court to bestow its attention to the discussion that has been carried by the learned Judge in the First - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 Appellate Court in paragraph No.15 referred to supra where under, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court extracted the admissions elicited in the cross- examination of D.W.1. 19. Those admissions, if considered in the light of the rival contentions of the parties, cannot be termed as a stray admission as is sought to be portrayed by learned counsel for the appellant. 20. On the contrary, not only the relationship but also other details have been admitted by D.W.1 in his cross-examination. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admissions are to be considered as the best evidence which relieves the burden cast on the plaintiff to establish her case. 21. Taking note of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30428 RSA No. 164 of 2020 22. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27