- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ANJANEYA S/O LATE SIDDAYA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/O KIRAGUNDA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.REVANNA S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O KIRUGUNDA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/O KIRUGUNDA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571301. 2. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE K.M.SIDDAIAH, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O KIRUGUNDA VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. UMESH FOR R1 & R2.,ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 14.09.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.62/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.499/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 14.09.2016 in R.A.No.62/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2015 in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 O.S.No.499/2011 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original propositus- Ramaiah had two children namely Siddaiah and Madaiah. Siddaiah had six children including the plaintiff. Madaiah had two chlldren namely Madaiah and K.M. Siddaiah. The defendants are the wives of Madaiah and K.M. Siddaiah (children of Madaiah), respectively. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of senior Madaiah and before the birth of plaintiff, the suit schedule property was divided between the husbands of defendants and as such inequitable share is given to the plaintiff and his brothers and accordingly, plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.499/2011 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 5. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that the land in question belonged to late Ramaiah and his sons Siddaiah and Madaiah have divided the property about forty years back and thereafter the name of the defendants is entered in the revenue records wayback in 1988-89 and therefore, it is the case of the defendants that suit is not maintainable. 6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record has formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish his case, plaintiff has examined one witness as P.W.1 and produced 8 documents as Ex.P1 to P8. Defendants have examined one witness as D.W.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2015, dismissed the suit with cost. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed R.A.No.62/2015 and same was contested by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 14.09.2016, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.499/2011. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. Heard Sri. P. Mahesha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. S. Umesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that, both the Courts below have erred in arriving at the conclusion that there was an earlier partition between the family members, despite the fact that no material has been produced by defendants to prove division of property between the two branches of Siddaiah and Madaiah (children of original propositus-Ramaiah) before the Trial Court, and accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is relevant to extract the genealogy tree which is as follows: RAMAIAH DEVAMMA |----------------------------------------| SIDDAIAH MADAIAH | | 1.Huchaiah |---------------| 2.Gurusiddaiah Madaiah K.M.Siddaiah 3.Madaiah | | 4.Siddaiah Siddamma(D1) Siddamma(D2) 5.Rajappa 6.Anjaneya (Plaintiff) 11. Perusal of the genealogy tree would indicate that the original propositus- Ramaiah had two children Siddaiah and Madaiah. Siddaiah had six children and the plaintiff is one of the children of Siddaiah. The second son of the original propositus i.e., Madaiah had two children namely Madaiah and K.M. Siddaiah. The defendant No.1 is wife of late Madaiah and defendant No.2 is wife of late K.M. Siddaiah. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 12. Having perused the finding recorded by the Trial Court, particularly with regard to issue Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that there was a division in the joint family of children of late Ramaiah and thereafter, children of Siddaiah and children of Madaiah were in possession of the suit schedule properties. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by both the Courts below that portion of the land has also been sold in favour of Sri. K. Honnegowda, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 11.07.1967 and also brother of plaintiff had sold portion of land as per the registered Sale Deed dated 13.06.1978. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by both the Courts below that there was division of property between the children of Ramaiah. It is also forthcoming from the record that mutation entries have been made in favour of children of Madaiah pursuant to the partition effected between the children of late Ramaiah. Hence, I find that no interference is called for in this Regular Second Appeal, as both the Courts below, after appreciating the material on record, have rightly dismissed the suit. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37050 RSA No. 469 of 2017 13. Accordingly, as the appellant has not made out a case for framing of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37