- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1770 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T. RANGAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE B-DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.R. ASHOKA S/O T. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE B-DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. B.R. KAVITHA D/O T. RANGAPPA W/O AJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O RANGAVVANAHALLI VILLAGE B-DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 3. KRISHNAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE B-DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. SRI. B.R. ARUNKUMAR S/O T RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF BANAGERE VILLAGE B-DURGA HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.17/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.23/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that property belongs to the family of the plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share over the suit schedule properties. 4. The defendant No.3 in the written statement claims that she is entitled for 1/4th share over the suit schedule properties and the defendant No.1 also contend that suit schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties are his self-acquired properties and plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. 5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff and defendant No.3 are entitled for 1/4th share and suit is dismissed in respect of item No.3 of the ‘C’ schedule property. Hence, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 partly decreed the suit accepting the contention of defendant No.3 while answering additional issue No.2, as she has claimed the counter claim. But answered additional issue No.1 as ‘negative’ with regard to the claim that suit schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties are his self-acquired properties and granted the relief of partition as 1/4th share. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points whether the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence in coming to the conclusion that family properties are the joint family properties and whether the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and whether it requires interference of the Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’. However, while answering point No.3 comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that except item No.3 of the ‘C’ schedule property, it does not require any interference and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that specific defence was taken that ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the defendant and both the Courts have committed an error and particularly, the admission of P.W.1 that he had been allotted arecanut and coconut trees as his share in the previous partition and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not justified in not considering the fact that plaintiff was only 14 years old at the time of purchasing the ‘B’ schedule property and the same was not taken note of. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by admitting the second appeal and framing the substantial question of law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the grounds which have been urged in the second appeal to frame the substantial question of law, the Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the properties are joint family properties and the same is also not seriously disputed by the defendant, except contending that ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are the separate properties and in order to establish the same, nothing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 is placed on record that the same are self-acquired properties. However, Trial Court also rightly considered the counter claim made by defendant No.3 in respect of item No.3 of the ‘C’ schedule property and the suit was dismissed in respect of the said claim, in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in respect of item No.3 of the ‘C’ schedule property. When both oral and documentary evidence is considered by the Trial Court and in the absence of any proof with regard to ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are the self- acquired properties as contented by the appellant, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have considered the question of fact and question of law and in the absence of any perversity with regard to appreciation of evidence and the only contention is that plaintiff was 14 years old at the time of purchasing the property and the fact that he is a member of the family and the property belongs to joint family is not disputed. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45511 RSA No. 1770 of 2024 9. 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.: 47