- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1539 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SUDHA. W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HARAVU VILLAGE, CHINAKUARALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK. MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: LAKSHMAMMA W/O. PUTTASWAMY, D/O. PAPEGOWDA R/OF SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK SINCE DEAD BY LRS. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 1. SMT. MANJULA. W/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANDYADA KOPPALU VILLAGE, HARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. 2. REKHA, W/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3015, GOKULAM 1ST STAGE, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. 3. P. AJAY, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO. 5029/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.23/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in length. 4. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that Item No. 1 of the property is the self-acquired property of Papegowda and Item No.2 property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. They further contended that during the lifetime of Papegowda, he himself effected a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 partition in respect of Item No.1 of the property and allotted the same to his two sons in equal shares. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the defendants examined 3 witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D9. 6. Upon considering both the oral and documentary evidence, it is not in dispute that the property belongs to the father of Papegowda. The only contention raised is that a partition had taken place during the lifetime of the father as per Ex.D2. However, Ex.D2 is not a registered document, and no material is placed on record to establish that the parties acted upon the said document. Except relying upon Exs.D8 and D9, the tax paid receipts, the death certificate (Ex.D5), and certain - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 bank receipts(Exs.D3 and 4), no supporting evidence has been produced. 7. The Trial Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share. While arriving at this conclusion, the Trial Court observed that there are no materials to believe the version of the defendants. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have produced the oral evidence of one of the attesting witnesses as DW-3, whose evidence supported their case; however, except eliciting that the guardian was defendant No.3, nothing substantial was brought out in his cross-examination. Hence, the Trial Court allowed the notional partition and accordingly granted 1/9th share to the plaintiff. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal in R.A. No.5029/2020. The Appellate Court, after considering the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the point as to whether the Trial Court was justified in granting 1/9th share over suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 properties and whether the judgment and decree calls for interference. Upon reassessing the entire material on record, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that though Exhibit D2 was relied upon, it is an unregistered document and has not been acted upon. It is further held that the suit schedule properties continued to remain as joint family properties in the hands of the children of Papegowda. By considering Section 6A and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and accordingly, modified the judgment of the Trial Court, which had granted only a notional share. 9. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the appellants have urged that the First Appellate Court committed an error in granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. It is their contention that there was a partition between the two brothers on 15.06.1991, and the RTC entries clearly disclose such a division. It is further contended that the First Appellate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 Court had committed an error in granting an equal 1/3rd share instead of a notional share of 1/9th, on the ground that there was no registered partition between the father and his sons, which finding is unsustainable. The appellants also submit that the Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment in Vineetha Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma case. Hence, this Court ought to admit the appeal and frame substantial questions of law. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and on perusal of the pleadings, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that Item No.1 is the self-acquired property of Papegowda and Item No.2 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. However, defendant No.2 has not produced any document to substantiate that Item No.2 is his exclusive - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 property. It is also not in dispute that the properties were acquired by Papegowda. Admittedly, Papegowda did not execute any testamentary document disposing of his properties and when such being the case, he died intestate, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. 11. Though the defendants rely upon Ex.D2, is inadmissible document and the same is unregistered document. Apart from that, no material has been placed on record to show that the parties have acted upon the said document. The Appellate Court has rightly comes to the conclusion that Ex.D2 cannot be relied upon, particularly when the plaintiff is not a party to the said document. When such being the case, the plaintiff, being the legal heirs of Papegowda are entitled to 1/3rd share.When such material was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to a share. The only error committed by the Trial Court was in holding that she is entitled only to a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49215 RSA No. 1539 of 2024 notional share, which has been rightly rectified by the First Appellate Court by holding that she is entitled to an equal share and not merely 1/9th share. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineetha Sharma (supra), the Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and not a notional share. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal or to frame any substantial question of law, and it is not a case for invoking Section 100 of the CPC. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41