- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1185 OF 2007 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDAPPA, S/O SRI VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI H K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANANDAPPA, S/O SRI VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YRS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK. 2. SMT CHANNAMMA, W/O LATE SRI VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YRS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS RESPONDENT NO.1, 3, 4, 5(a) to 5(c) 6 & 7 ALREADY ON RECORD 3. SMT ERAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 3(a) NARESHKUMAR, S/O GOWDRA NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KENCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KENCHANAHALLI POST, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 4. SMT RUDRAMMA, W/O LATE SRI GOWDRA NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YRS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O KENCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 5. SMT GOWRAMMA KONDAJJI, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, (a) KUM ASHA M N, AGED ABOUT 27 YRS, (b) KUM USHA M N, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (c) KUM RAJESHWARI M N, AGED ABOUT 24 YRS ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF SRI NARAPPA, R/O AGASANAKATTE VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577001. 6. SRI VEERABHADRAPPA, S/O SRI VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YRS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577001. 7. SRI SHEKHARAPPA, S/O SRI VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KONDAJI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28.10.2011) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAM BHAT & SREEPADA ASSOCIATES, ADV. FOR R1, SRI ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) AND R6, SRI S GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R4, R5(a) R5(c) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED, V/O/DT 06.02.2025 NOTICE TO R5(b) is H/S R1, R3, R4 AND R5(a-c), R6, R7 AND APPELLANT ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R2) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 28.9.06 PASSED IN R.A.NO 64/03 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), HARIHAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 15.9.03 PASSED IN OS 551/92 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN), & JMFC, HARIHAR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from the divergent finding in a suit for partition. The suit is decreed and appeals filed by three defendants in three different appeals are allowed, consequently the suit is dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 2. Though three different appeals are filed and allowed, the plaintiff has chosen to file only one appeal and he has not challenged the judgments and decrees in two appeals. 3. The present Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.64/2003. Common judgment and decree in R.A.No.66/2003 and R.A.No.67/2003 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Harihara are not questioned. 4. Notwithstanding the technical objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal is not maintainable as other two judgments in the appeal are not questioned, this appeal is heard on merit, considering the fact that all three appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 5. Certain facts are admitted: The suit is filed by the son against the father and 3 brothers. The relationship is not in dispute. The nature of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 property is also not in dispute. The defendants raised only one contention that the suit is not maintainable as there was already a partition between the plaintiff and defendants which was recorded in a document dated 13.11.1991 where the plaintiff is also allotted certain share in the family properties. 6. Defendants primarily contended that it was an oral partition later reduced to writing on 13.11.1991. 7. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the premise that the document dated 13.11.1991 is inadmissible for want of registration. 8. First Appellate Court held that the document is admissible as it is a memorandum of oral partition which was effected in the family earlier. 9. Hence, this Second appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law, in terms of order dated 12.03.2020: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 "(1) Whether the first appellate Court committed an error in relying on the unregistered Deed of Partition dated 13.11.1991 to upset the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court ? (2) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in allowing I.A.3 filed by the contesting defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., 1908 without considering whether the contesting defendants had placed sufficient material to indicate that they were prevented from producing these documents? (3) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment & decree of the Trial Court?" 10. After going through the records, it is noticed that the plaintiff has not whispered anything about the partition deed dated 13.11.1991. However, in one paragraph there is a vague reference by the plaintiff contending that there was a dispute relating to the division of the properties by the family members and panchayatdars assured that they would resolve the dispute and took the plaintiff's signature on a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 blank paper. However, it is noticed that there is no specific reference to the alleged partition deed dated 13.11.1991. 11. The defendants took a specific defence that the partition took place and to evidence the same, it is reduced to writing on 13.11.1991 and led oral evidence to contend that it was memorandum of previous oral partition among the family members. Thereafter, the plaintiff did not file any rejoinder, however in the evidence he has taken a stand that his signature on the blank paper is misused. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ appellant would submit that the document dated 13.11.1991 is not registered as required under the law. The document does not say that it is a memorandum of oral partition. The document gives an impression that the partition took place on 13.11.1991 itself and for this reason, the document requires registration and for want of registration, the said document is inadmissible in evidence and First Appellate Court could not have granted relief in favour of the defendants holding that there was already a partition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 13. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents on the other hand would submit that the partition took place much earlier among the family members and the plaintiff is allotted his due share in the family properties and on 13.11.1991, it was reduced into writing and the said document does not require registration. He would also submit that to substantiate the contention relating to oral partition the evidence of panchayatdars have been led and First Appellate Court has analysed the said evidence and concluded that the document evidences previous partition and accordingly dismissed the suit. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. The plaintiff's signature on the document is not in dispute. It is not alleged by the plaintiff that the share allotted to him is of lesser value when compared with the share allotted to the defendants. Partition is not challenged on the premise that it is inequitable. The plaint averment would only give an indication that the suit is filed for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 partition simpliciter. There is no challenge to the partition deed dated 13.11.1991. In fact it is suppressed. 16. Even after the written statement is filed by the defendants, the plaintiff has not chosen to file a rejoinder or the amended plaint. Even if such an exercise is not required and defendants have to establish their plea relating to the oral partition. 17. On consideration of the document dated 13.11.1991 and also the evidence of the witness who have given evidence stating that the actual partition took place much earlier to the document dated 13.11.1991 and the same was reduced to writing to evidence the partition, this Court is of the view that the finding of First Appellate Court does not call for any interference. 18. On careful scrutiny of the recital in the partition deed, it is noticed that there is a recital to the effect that, "F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÉqÀÆå¯ï£À°è PÀAqÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ D¹ÜUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 19. In the schedule, the properties which have been allotted to the respective sharers are also mentioned. It is also noticed that liability to repay the loan of Rs.51,000/- is fastened on the present appellant/plaintiff. 20. Since the plaintiff has filed a suit as if there was no partition, plaintiff has not repaid the loan amount. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instruction would submit that the loan amount is repaid by the respondents and he would further submit that they will not insist the plaintiff to repay the said loan amount and they will not go for recovery of the said loan amount from the plaintiff. 22. First Appellate Court has extensively extracted the admission of P.W.1 in the cross-examination wherein he has stated that he has not given any complaint for having taken his signature on the blank paper. Though he has tried to make a statement that signature was taken on blank paper on the assurance that he will be given share only in case if he signs on the blank paper. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 23. It is also noticed by First Appellate Court that the witnesses who signed the partition deed dated 13.11.1991 were present while effecting the partition. It is also noticed by First Appellate Court that the document was written 15 days after the actual partition took place. Evidence of the witnesses which is relied on by First Appellate Court cannot brushed aside, in the light of the pleading presented before the Trial Court by the plaintiff where he does not make any reference to the partition deed dated 13.11.1991. 24. As already noticed, it is not the grievance of the plaintiff that the partition which was effected is inequitable. 25. Though the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently urge that the liability to repay the loan is only fastened on the appellant and no liability is fastened on the defendants to repay the loan amount, since the statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that the defendants have repaid the loan and they will not insist for the plaintiff to discharge the said - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27034 RSA No. 1185 of 2007 amount, the contention relating to inequitable distribution of loan also does not arise. 26. For the aforementioned reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59