- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1894 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PRAMEELAMMA W/O LATE V. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI. MURALI S/O LATE V. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ARUR VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V. NANDEESHA S/O LATE MUDRE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT ARUR VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562101. 2. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE V. SRINIVAS Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT ARUR VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAN CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED IN R.A NO.60/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHICKBALLAPUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S NO.248/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR. 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 preferred by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2015 in R.A.No.60/2013 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 21.02.2013 in O.S.No.248/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their status before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that original propositus Sri. Mudre Venkatarayappa had three children namely, V. Srinivasa, Nandeesha (plaintiff) and Balakrishna. Balakrishna died without leaving behind any issues. Defendant No.1 is the wife of V. Srinivasa and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of V. Srinivasa. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and accordingly, sought for partition in the joint family properties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.248/2008 before the Trial Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties. 4. After service of notice, defendant Nos.1 and 3 remained absent and accordingly, placed exparte. Defendant No.2 appeared and filed written statement. It is the specific contention of defendant No.2 that there was a partition in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 joint family properties and therefore, the defendant No.2 took up the specific contention that, as there was an oral partition before the Panchayatdars, and therefore, suit is not maintainable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. It is also contended that, revenue records have been changed pursuant to the oral partition in the joint family and as such, defendant No.2 took up the contention that the suit for partition is not maintainable. 5. The Trial Court considering the pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one more witness as P.W.2 and produced 41 documents as Exs.P1 to P41. Defendants neither examined any witness nor produced any documents to establish their case. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2013, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have preferred R.A.No.60/2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2015, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.248/2008. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 and 3 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 6. Heard Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Mohan Chandra P., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 7. Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the appellants, invited the attention of the Court to the family tree of the parties to establish their relationship with the original propositus Mudre Venkatarayappa and also Exs.P3 to P5, wherein the record of rights have been changed pursuant to the oral partition said to have been effected between the plaintiff and defendants. Learned counsel further submitted that both the courts below have committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that plaintiff is having half share in the suit schedule properties and as such sought for interference of this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 8. Per contra, Sri. Mohan Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below and further contended that, since there is concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below, no interference of this Court is called for in this appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogical tree of the parties is extracted below: Nandeesha Respondent (No.1) V.Srinivasa (died) Prameelamma (Wife) Balakrishna(Died) (Without issues) Venkatesha (Respondent No.2) Murali (Appellant No.2) MUDRE VENKATARAYAPPA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 10. On careful examination of the genealogical tree would indicate that Mudre Venkatarayappa had three children, namely, Sri. V. Srinivasa (husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3), Nandeesha (plaintiff) and Balakrishna (died without any issues). In that view of the matter, surviving two children of Mudre Venkatarayappa are Sri. V. Srinivasa and Sri. Nandeesha. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff sought for half share in the properties and same was resisted by defendant stating that there was oral partition in the family. 11. In order to substantiate their case, defendant No.2 alone has filed statement of objections stating that there was a partition at the instance of the panchayatdars and the suit properties have been partitioned by the parties during 2001 and thereafter, the mutation has been changed by the respondent - authorities and as such, defendant No.2 would substantiate the partition in the family. However, in the backdrop of these aspects, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by the Trial Court, would indicate that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 admittedly the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have not contested the matter before the Trial Court and are placed exparte. Defendant No.2 has filed written statement stating that there was a partition during 2001. However, no acceptable evidence has been made by defendant No.2 to substantiate the oral partition said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendants. It is also to be noted that, no evidence has been adduced by the defendants. In that view of the matter, though learned counsel for the appellant made a plea to consider the entries in the RTC extracts, however, since there is no oral or documentary evidence on the part of the defendants and that apart, no independent witness has been examined to substantiate that there was an oral partition during 2001, and therefore, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.3, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this appeal. It is also to be noted that since both the Courts below have concurrently held against the defendants / appellants herein, I am of the view that, it is not a case for framing substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28966 RSA No. 1894 of 2015 12. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31