- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1560 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SAROJAMMA, W/O. LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT DR. AMBEDKAR STREET, HANNURU TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. 2. ROOPA, D/O. LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT DR. AMBEDKAR STREET, HANNURU TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. 3. KUMAR @ VIJAYENDRA KUMAR, S/O. LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT DR. AMBEDKAR STREET, HANNURU TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. 4. INDRA PRABHA, D/O. LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT DR. AMBEDKAR STREET, HANNURU TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 5. RENUKA, D/O. LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT DR. AMBEDKAR STREET, HANNURU TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RACHAMMA, W/O. LATE CHINNAMADAIAH, DEAD BY LRS. CHINNATHAYAMMA, D/O RACHAMMA, W/O PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. UDDANURU VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. 2. JAYAMMA, D/O. RACHAMMA, W/O. LATE NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O. 5TH CROSS, NEAR SRI SHAMBULING TEMPLE, GANDHINAGAR, MYSURU-570 017. 3. DEVAMMA, D/O. RACHAMMA, W/O. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. GUNDAPURA VILLAGE, (KHATHAL) HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 4. BHAGYA, D/O. RACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT DANTALLI VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 5. SUNDARAMMA, D/O. RACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. BANDALLI VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 6. MAHADEVAMMA, D/O. RACHAMMA, W/O. MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. ANAGALLIDODDI VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 7. SAROJA, D/O. RACHAMMA, W/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.MALLAPURA VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 8. SIDDARTHA, S/O. RACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. GUNDAPURA VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. DODDASIDDAIAH, S/O. LATE RACHAIAH, DEAD BY LRS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 9. DEVARAJE, D/O. LATE DODDASIDDAIAH, W/O. CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. BUDINAPALYA VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 10. RAJASHEKAR, S/O. LATE DODDASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. AMBEDKAR COLONY, HANUR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 11. VASANTHA, D/O. LATE DODDASIDDAIAH, W/O. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. MANUGANAHALLI, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 12. SHASHI @ SHUSHEELA, D/O. LATE DODDASIDDAIAH, W/O. CHIKKAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. MANUGANAHALLI, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 131. 13. LEELAVATHI, D/O. LATE DODDASIDDAIAH, W/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. KONGRAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440. 14. PUTTASIDDAIAH, S/O. LATE RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. KONGRAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 15. KAVERI NIRAVARI NIGAMA, REP. BY SPECIAL LAO, ANDOLANA CIRCLE, MYSURU CITY-570 002. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5009/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA, (SITTING AT KOLLEGALA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.14/2015 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA. 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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The suit is filed by the plaintiff – Rachamma seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The property originally belongs to Rachaiah and the plaintiff is the daughter of Rachaiah. It is the contention of the defendants/appellants that there was a partition between the brothers i.e., Doddasiddaiah, Puttasiddaiah and Lingaraju, who are the children of Rachaiah - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 in the year 2001. The property was partitioned through an unregistered document and the defendants have not contested the matter before the Trial Court and the Trial Court considering the material available on record, held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The another son of Rachaiah is no more and the legal heirs of Rachaiah are Rachamma, Doddasiddaiah, Puttasiddaiah and Lingaraju. Hence, they are equally entitled for 1/4th share. 3. The defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5009/2019 and the First Appellate Court considering the delay of 1,007 days, formulated point Nos.2 and 3, whether the judgment of the Trial Court is not based on facts and law and whether the appellants prove that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge is illegal and perverse. The Trial Court even though not satisfied with the reasons assigned with regard to the delay is concerned, considered the matter on merits while answering point Nos.2 to 4 and considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the appellants/defendants remained absent and even though the Trial Court granted an opportunity - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 also, they did not produce any documents before the Trial Court and there was no other option to the Trial Court except to pass the judgment. The contention of the appellants that no opportunity was given to them to address their arguments before the Trial Court cannot be accepted. The appellants did not produce any documents to prove their contention before the First Appellate Court that in terms of the partition dated 03.11.2001, they have acted upon. The First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that suit item No.1 property was granted to one Rachaiah and he has not executed any testamentary document. The First Appellate Court held that under the circumstances, all the children are entitled for a share in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material on record with regard to the earlier partition is concerned. On perusal of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52184 RSA No. 1560 of 2024 material available on record, even though the plaintiff herself relied upon the partition deed, the same is an unregistered document and the same is not admissible in evidence. Apart from that, no material is placed before the Court for having acted upon in terms of the partition and the appellants/defendants also did not choose to place any material on record before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, when the property is allotted in favour of Rachaiah, all the children are entitled for 1/4th share, since Rachaiah has not executed any testamentary document. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42