- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 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.1258 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT VAJARAHALLI HULIKUNTE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DODDAHANUMAKKA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR B.J., S/O LATE PUTTANARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SRI. SANTHOSH S/O LATE PUTTANARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT VAJARAHALLI HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 4. SMT. ARCHANA S/O LATE PUTTANARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 5. SRI. SANJEEVEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT YALADAKATTE VILLAGE JAVAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6. SRI PUTTAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 7. SMT. SANNA LAKKAMMA (DEAD) 8. THE MANAGER SCO, DWARANAKUNTE SIRA TALUK. 9. THE MANAGER PLD BANK SIRA. 10. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE SIRA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5, R9, R10 AND R8 ARE SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.07.2024 R7 IS DECEASED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.04.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.30/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in respect of granting of share, but there is modification with regard to apportionment is concerned. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession contending that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of herself and defendants and hence, claim 1/3rd share over the suit schedule properties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant No.4 took the specific contention that there was Panchayath Palupatti in the year 1977 among the family properties of deceased Kariyappa. 5. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties allowed the parties to lead evidence. The trial Court having considered the material on record both oral and documentary evidence, particularly answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 which is extracted in paragraph No.14, wherein she categorically admitted that Pujari Ningappa, her son Sriramaiah and Putta Hanumaiah got partitioned the property of original propositus Ningappa. The Trial Court also having considered the fact that there was already a partition between the legal heirs of original propositus Ningappa, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are mother and sister of Sriramaiah, who represent the branch of Kariyappa are entitled for 1/3rd share over the suit schedule properties and granted the relief of 1/3rd share in ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 6. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court by defendant No.4. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record keeping in view the grounds urged in the appeal formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in granting 1/3rd share to plaintiff No.1, legal representatives of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4 for herself and on behalf of her children in the suit schedule properties. On re-appreciation, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.35 that mother not represents as a co-parcener in respect of the property of Kariyappa. However, Kariyappa, and his son as well as Puttanarasamma are entitled for 1/3rd share each and out of that, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as well as said Sriramaiah are entitled for 1/3rd share of Kariyappa. Hence, it comes to 1/9th share, whereas the share of Sriramaiah and plaintiff No.2 is 1/3rd as co-parcener and 1/9th as class-1 legal heir i.e., 4/9th share. The same is challenged before this Court by defendant No.4 in this second appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that when there was already a partition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 between Sriramaiah and Pujari Ningappa’s branch i.e., children of Kariyappa and Pujari Ningappa long back, cannot invoke Section 205 amendment. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Sriramaiah is entitled for half share and in the remaining half share of Kariyappa, again all the three i.e., Mother, sister and Sriramaiah are entitled for a share over the property and both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of partition. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 would vehemently contend that earlier partition in the year 1977 i.e., only the children of original propositus Ningappa, since they represented their respective fathers and there was no division among the family of Kariyappa. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The counsel would vehemently contend that mother and sister of Sriramaiah had filed the suit and it is not the case that in between Sriramaiah and Dodda Hanumakka i.e., plaintiff No.1 i.e., mother of Sriramaiah and Puttanarasamma, who is plaintiff No.2 i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 sister of Sriramaiah have partitioned the property. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The counsel also would submit that mother not being a co-parcener, the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.35 correctly made the division of the property. Hence, it does not require any interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 and particularly, taking note of the fact that property originally belongs to propositus Ningappa is not in dispute. No doubt, defendant No.4 has contended in the written statement that there was a partition in the year 1977 and the said partition is between the legal heirs of Ningappa i.e., Kariyappa and Pujari Ningappa and other son Kadarappa was no more and he died issueless and Doddakka female member at that time, she was not entitled for any share and that is why, she was excluded and only the branches of Kariyappa and Pujari Ningappa have partitioned the property. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was already a partition in the year 1977 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 cannot be accepted. There is no material before the Court that already there was a partition between the legal representatives of Kariyappa i.e., Sriramaiah and between the plaintiff. This suit is filed in 2013 subsequent to amendment to Section 6. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of First Appellate Court in modifying the judgment of the Trial Court, since the Trial Court granted 1/3rd share each, but the First Appellate Court having considered the fact that mother was not a co-parcener, subsequently, notional partition was considered on the share of Kariyappa that all of them are equally entitled from the property of Kariyappa. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and both the Courts have taken note of question of fact and question of law. But, there was an error on the part of the Trial Court and the same is set it right by the First Appellate Court considering the material on record. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52827 RSA No. 1258 of 2022 ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30