- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1593/2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAMATHI W/O M. VENKATARAMANA MAYYA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. SHANTHINAGARA SHRILAKSHMI KRIPA HOUSE NO.1-160 KALPANE, PANITHOTA SHANTHINAGARA KODIMBADY POST AND VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. 574325. 2. SRI. L. ANANTHA AITHALA S/O L. PARAMESHWARA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.152, BLD - 93, 1ST FLOOR K.H.B. COLONY, KST III STAGE BENGALURU-560060. 3. SMT. L. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O V. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.660, DURGA NILAYA 1ST MAIN ROAD D BLOCK 1ST CROSS 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560010. 4. SRI. KRISHNA AITHAL .L S/O L. PARAMESHWARA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BAZAR HOUSE Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 THEKKAR VILLAGE AND POST VIA UPPINANGADY BELTHANGADY TALUK-574241. 5. SMT. L. PARVATHI W/O MADANA GOPALA PURANIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT VERABADRESHWARA NILAYA HOUSE NO.9, 2ND CROSS, MAYUR NAGAR ANANDA NAGARA ROAD HUBLI-560024. 6. YAJNESHWARA AITHAL S/O L. PARAMESHWARA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A MIG 13, K H B COLONY KUNJATHBAIL POST MANGALURU-575015. 7. SMT. INDUMATHI L.B. W/O N.N. SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.496, 2ND FLOOR BUILDING NO.93 KENGERI SATALITE TOWN KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BENGALURU-560060. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. K. SHIVARAMA RAO S/O K. ANANTHAYYA AGE MAJOR, ADVOCATE R/AT ANANDA NIVAS BEHIND NATARAJ THEATER IDDYA VILLAGE POST, SURATHKAL MANGALURU-575014. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 2. MR. SADU HUSSAIN S/O LATE T. HUSSAIN SADU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT GL-8/98, 8TH BLOCK CHOKKABETTU, KRISHNAPURA KATIPALLA, KULASHEKAR MANGALURU, SURATKAL-575014. 3. MR. K.V. SADANANDA S/O VISHWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT GOLIAKUL LAKANATHAPURA POST KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577123. …RESPONDENTS - - - THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2022 IN RA NO.42/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU D.K. CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2018 IN O.S.NO.355/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU THE SUIT BE DECREED BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE ENNDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the present appeal. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.355/2006 confirmed in R.A.No.42/2018 whereby suit for declaration that Document No.3063/1997-98 dated 04.12.1997 -a registered release deed is a fraudulent and invalid document, came to be dismissed. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 4. In respect of three immovable properties, the aforesaid registered release deed was sought to be declared as an invalid document. Description of those three immovable properties are hereunder and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule properties: "Item No.I Immovable property held on warg right, situated in No.50 Iddya Village of Mangaluru Taluk within Mangaluru City Corporation and within Sub-Registration District of Mangaluru Taluk and comprised in :- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 S.No. Kissam Extent A-C Portion 69-7C Dry 0.05 Whole 69-8B Dry 0.12 Whole Containing residential building Door No.4-65 with all mamul easementary rights, right of road, right of water etc., appurtenant thereto. Item No.II Immovable property held on warg right, situated in No.50 Iddya Village of Mangaluru Taluk within Mangaluru City Corporation and within Sub-Registration District of Mangaluru Taluk and comprised in :- S.No. Kissam Extent A-C Portion 108- 1A2 Dry 1.06 Whole With all mamul easementary rights appurtenant thereto. Item No.III Immovable property held on warg right, situated in Permude Village of Mangaluru Taluk within Permude Village Panchayat and within Sub-Registration District of Mangaluru Taluk and comprised in :- S.No. Kissam Extent A-C Portion 223-4 Dry 2.26 Whole With all mamul easementary rights appurtenant thereto." 5. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that one Sri.K.Ananthayya was the owner of the suit schedule properties who purchased those properties in the name of his wife - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 Smt.Laxmiamma through a registered sale deed dated 16.03.1971. Upon the death of Sri.K.Ananthayya intestate on 15.03.1987, the properties devolved on his wife Smt.Laxmiamma and their children namely Smt.Kaveramma and Sri.K.Venkat Rao. 6. Sri.K.Venkat Rao filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.576/1988 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangaluru. First defendant in the suit namely K.Shivarama Rao, who is also the son of Sri.K.Ananthayya and Smt.Laxmiamma, being an advocate, took full responsibility to defend the claim of Smt.Laxmiamma in the suit filed by Sri.K.Venkat Rao. 7. It is further alleged in the plaint that in the year 1985, on account of old age, Smt.Laxmiamma had to depend upon first defendant for her daily requirements and defendant No.1 was not allowing his mother to go out of the house and she was acting like puppet in the hands of defendant No.1. 8. It is further contended that Smt.Laxmiamma had lost the worldly knowledge and consequences of the acts she was conducting because of the old age ailments and she was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 physically and mentally infirm and taking advantage of her mental and physical condition, a release deed got executed by Smt.Laxmiamma which is marked as Exhibit P2 in the suit. 9. It is also contended that Smt.Laxmiamma died on 08.01.2004 leaving behind her three children namely Smt.Kaveramma, Sri.K.Shivarama Rao and Sri.K.Venkat Rao as her only legal heirs. It is further contended that plaintiffs received a notice in R.A.No.4/2003 impleading the plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 as the respondents in view of the death of their mother and at that juncture, they came to know that Kaveramma had also filed a suit for partition. At that juncture, they also verified the records in R.A.No.4/2003 and came to know that there was a release deed executed by Smt.Laxmiamma. 10. O.S.No.576/1988 got decreed in part and 1/4th share was granted to plaintiff Sri.K.Venkat Rao in respect of only item No.1 of the suit schedule properties which ultimately reached its finality in R.A.No.4/2003. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 11. The plaintiffs therefore claimed that they are having right in respect of the suit properties and registered release deed did not take away their right in respect of the suit properties and maintained the suit. 12. Defendants, after entering appearance, filed detailed written statement denying plaint averments in toto and two issues were framed and an additional issue was also framed with regard to the sufficiency of the Court fee, which was tried as the preliminary issue. 13. Additional issue went in favour of the plaintiffs and suit was tried in respect of issue Nos.1 and 2. Learned Trial Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties in detail, came to the conclusion that Smt.Laxmiamma had executed the registered release deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 03.12.1997, was alive upto 08.01.2004 and in her lifetime, she did not challenge the registered release deed and therefore the plaintiffs' suit came to be dismissed. 14. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.42/2018. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 15. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material on record, both on factual and legal aspects, did not form any other opinion other than that of the learned Trial Judge in holding that plaintiffs' suit has to fail and dismissed the appeal. 16. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have filed the present appeal with the following substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum: "1) Whether the Trial Court has justified in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiffs ignoring the clear admissions of DW-1 as to the cordial relationship with and faith reposed by his mother Smt. Laxmiamma proving his fiduciary capacity which resulted in getting the Ex.P-2 Release Deed executed by the Defendant ? (ii) Whether the Trial Court has erred in law holding that Smt. Laxmiamma had executed Ex.P-2 Release Deed with free consent infavour of the Defendant and not under any undue influence especially when the daughter, son in law and grand children of the executant Smt. Laxmiamma were very much available but not a party witness to the said Ex.P-2?. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 (iii) Whether the Trial Court has erred in law holding that execution of Ex.P-2 by Smt. Laxmiamma does not suffer from any undue influence as pleaded by the Plaintiffs in the absence of examining attesting witnesses especially when the family members of the executant were not the witnesses to the said document Ex.P-2? (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court has justified in confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court without re-appreciating the pleading and evidence on record as required under Order 41 Rule 34 of CPC, 1908 except reiterating the finding of the Trial Court ? (v) Whether the Judgment and Decrees of the Trial and First Courts suffer from misreading of pleading and evidence of the parties?" 17. Sri.V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that till the plaintiffs received the notice in R.A.No.4/2003 wherein they came on record as legal representatives of mother of the plaintiffs, Smt.Laxmiamma, they were not aware of the release deed executed by Smt.Laxmiamma in favour of defendant No.1 Sri.K.Shivarama Rao. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 18. Therefore, dismissal of the suit by Trial Court that when Smt.Laxmiamma did not challenge the registered release deed in her lifetime, should not non-suit the plaintiffs in challenging the validity of the registered release deed and thus, sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 19. In the light of the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is pertinent to note that property was in exclusive name of Smt.Laxmiamma. Though the plaintiffs claimed that it was purchased by Sri.K.Ananthayya in the name of Smt.Laxmiamma, no such material is placed on record. In the release deed, Smt.Laxmiamma has executed her 1/4th share in favour of defendant No.1 Sri.K.Shivarama Rao. 21. In other words, the release deed did not take away the right which naturally succeeded by other children of Sri.K.Ananthayya and Smt.Laxmiamma. Only on the ground that Smt.Laxmiamma was given shelter in her last days by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 defendant No.1 and he being a practising advocate cannot be a reason to question the validity of registered release deed by the other siblings of defendant No.1. 22. For the sake of share in the property, baseless allegations are made in the plaint that Smt.Laxmiamma was not in fit mental and physical condition to execute the registered release deed. 23. Moreover, registered release deed acts as a public notice and therefore, contentions urged by the plaintiffs that they came to know about the registered release deed for the first time when they inspected the records in R.A.No.4/2003 which arose out of O.S.No.576/1988, cannot be a ground to hold that the plaintiffs were not aware of the registered release deed at all. 24. The defendant No.1 being a dutiful son, looked after his mother Smt.Laxmiamma caring to her day-to-day needs including the mental peace, has been given her share in the suit properties by virtue of the registered release deed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33355 R.S.A. No.1593/2022 25. No notice was issued during the lifetime of Smt.Laxmiamma about the release deed. Cleverly it has been mentioned that defendant No.1 being an advocate was managing the defence of all the defendants in the suit filed by Sri.K.Venkat Rao, one of the sons of Sri.K.Ananthayya and Smt.Laxmiamma in O.S.No.576/1988. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the plaintiffs were kept in dark about the registered release deed till they inspected the records in R.A.No.4/2003, cannot be countenanced in law. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60