- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1844 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: D.R. MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT DASAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI GUBBI TALUK - 572216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTTAIAH S/O LATE BHUTHANNA HUSBAND OF RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572125 2. KAREGOWDA S/O PUTTAIAH AND LATE RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572125 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 3. MANJULA D/O PUTTAIAH AND LATE RATHNAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NELADIMMANAHALLI KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572125 4. PUNEETH S/O PUTTAIAH AND LATE RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572125 5. RAJAMMA D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT THIPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 6. RAMESHA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 7. MUDLAPPA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 8. KANAKAPPA S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 9. RANGAMMA D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SAJJAVANDARAPALYA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 10. HALAPPA S/O LATE MARALAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HUILDORE VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 11. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT HUILDORE VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 12. KAMAKSHI S/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT HUILDORE VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 13. KALAVATHI W/O GOVINDARAJU @ GOVINDAPPA D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NELADIMMANAHALLI KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 14. GEETHA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT SHIDLEKONE VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 115 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 15. RAJAMMA W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT 5TH CROSS MUNICIPAL LAYOUT SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572103 16. RAGHU S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 17. JAYANNA S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK- 572125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH H V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO F5) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2023 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT The second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that these two plaintiffs are the daughters of one Rangashamaiah and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs along - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 with defendant No.1 to 7 and they are entitled for 1/9th share each of the suit properties and also contend that the sale deed dated 06.08.2005 is not binding on them. Defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the said fact is not in dispute and sale was made only by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 are not the parties to the said sale deed and hence, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are entitled for 1/9th share each in the suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.82/2023. 5. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 formulated the points and reassessing both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that sale deed executed in favour of the present appellant is not binding on the plaintiffs and hence, modifying the judgment of the Trial Court declaring that registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in favour of defendant No.9 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4. Hence, there is a concurrent finding from both the Courts. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in passing such judgment and decree and also vehemently contend that the question before this Court that whether there is a proper appreciation of the principles of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Veenitha Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 having regard to the factum that there was an earlier partition of the suit schedule properties on 26.05.1962 and as to whether the partition suit is maintainable in view of the protection being - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 given in the explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The counsel also vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of this fact into consideration. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would vehemently contend that there was a partition in the year 1962 between Rangashamaiah and Rangappa who are the children of Mudlappa and there was no any partition among the legal heirs of Rangashamaiah. Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that specific pleading was made with regard to the earlier partition deed dated 26.05.1962 which is between only the children of Mudlappa i.e., Rangashamiah and Rangappa and Rangappa also made as defendant No.8 in the case on hand. But, the suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the properties which devolves upon the Rangashamaiah and there was no any partition between them. However, property was sold by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in favour of the present - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 appellant and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 were not parties to the said sale transaction and sale transaction was also taken place on 06.08.2005 i.e., subsequent to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. When such being the case, the Trial Court not committed any error in granting the share. Even though, no observation is made with regard to the effect of sale deed is concerned. But First Appellate Court modified the same in coming to the conclusion that the same is not binding on the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as well as defendant No.4. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in granting 1/9th share each in the suit schedule properties and also held that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs since they were not parties to the proceedings. The very contention of counsel appearing for the appellant in view of the judgment of Vineesh Sharma referred supra that there was an earlier partition and the said judgment also not comes to the aid of the appellant since in the case on hand, the partition was between the father and uncle of the plaintiffs and there was no any partition among the members of the joint family of the Rangashamaiah. Hence, I do - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52918 RSA No. 1844 of 2025 not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 9. However, the sale was made in respect of Item No.5 by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, the appellant can claim equity before the FDP Court with regard to the share of the persons which the defendants have sold the same. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.s. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN