- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 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. 849 OF 2020 (PAR) BETWEEN: RANGAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HARIKARANAHALLI VILLAGE, R/O NEAR DOBARANAHALLI HIGH SCHOOL, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTTAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O HARIKARANAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227. 2. RADHAMANI S/O LATE GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SHIVASWAMY S/O LATE GOWRAMMA, Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT D SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.3/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.69/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. Nataraj G., learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.69/2012 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 confirmed in R.A.3/2019 which has been filed for the purpose of partition and separate possession. 3. Facts of the case are as under: Plaintiff claims that he is one of the sons of common prepositus by name Siddaiah and he had two siblings namely Puttaiah and Gowramma. After death of Siddaiah, the property was succeeded by plaintiff and defendant who are none other than his brother and children of his sister Gowramma. 4. Suit on contest came to be dismissed on the ground that said Rangappa had executed a Relinquishment Deed which was a registered document, relinquishing his right, title and interest over the suit property and therefore suit could not have been maintained. 5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.3/2019. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 in the light of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant, re-appreciated the material evidence on record especially probative value of Ex.D1 wherein not only the signature of Rangappa but also Siddaramaiah, held that plaintiff had lost his right in respect of the suit property by virtue of Ex.D1 and dismissed the appeal. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court in this second appeal on following grounds : That the impugned Judgment and decree being passed by the lower court and the first appellate court is contrary to law and probabilities of the case, hence the same is liable to be set-aside. That the lower court and the first appellate court grossly erred in believing Ex-D1, being the relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff, as it is not specific as to which property the relinquishment has been made. That the trail court and the first appellate court grossly erred in coming to conclusion that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the defendant No:1, only on the sole ground that the plaintiff and the defendant No:1 were residing separately. The nature of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 Joint family' does not extinguished only on the sole ground of residing separately. That the lower court and the first appellate court grossly erred in not taking into account the evidence to the fact that the plaintiff has contributed funds in purchasing the suit schedule properties and as such, it is highly improbable to state that the suit schedule properties are all self acquired properties of the defendant No: 1. That the lower court and first appellate court have grossly erred in coming to conclusion that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the defendant No:1 merely because of the reason that he has availed loan from the Kalpatharu Grameena Bank. That the lower court and the first appellate court have grossly erred in coming to conclusion that there has been earlier partition and amongst which certain portion of suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of the plaintiff and he has sold the same through various registered sale deeds. That the lower court and the first appellate court have grossly erred in coming to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the income being derived from joint family so as to purchase the suit schedule properties, but as a matter of fact, the defendant No:1 has not proved the factum that he had independent source of income so as to indulge in purchasing the suit schedule properties, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 thereby implying that the plaintiff has contributed the income in purchasing the suit schedule properties. That the lower court and the first appellate court have grossly erred in coming to conclusion that the plaintiff admitted the execution of the sale deeds. It is submitted that the plaintiff aged about 74 years, has virtually admitted the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the defendant No:1, but he has strongly contended that the said execution is for the benefit of joint family and thereby implying that the properties being purchased in the name of defendant No:1 are joint family properties. That the lower court and the first appellate court have grossly erred in coming to conclusion that the Ex-D1 is proved, but on the contrary the same has been denied by the plaintiff. That the lower court and the first appellate court have grossly erred in not giving a factum that the suit schedule properties are Joint family properties and to the same, the plaintiff is entitled for partition. Hence, viewed from any angle, that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and as such, the impugned Judgment and decree of both the lower court and the first appellate court, deserves to be set-aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 7. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law are raised: 1. Whether the Court below and the First Appellate Court erred in not properly appreciating the concept of Joint family property, though registered in the name of the Kartha? 2. Whether the Concept of Joint family property is declined merely because the family members are residing separately? 3. Whether the Court below and the First appellate court erred in rejecting the claim of the Plaintiff of the share in the Joint family property? 8. Sri. G. Nataraj, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated that document marked at Ex.D1 was only a make believe document and taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiff, Ex.D1 came to be executed. Therefore sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 9. This Court perused the material evidence on record meticulously in the light of arguments put-forth on behalf of the appellant. 10. On such perusal, it is noticed that learned Judge in the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have bestowed their best attention to the material on record in the case on hand. 11. There was a specific defence taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable on account of the registered Relinquishment Deed. 12. Plaintiff in order to suit to his stand, went on denying the signature even on the plaint and vakalath in O.S. No.69/2012. Siddaramaiah one of the signatories to Ex.D1 having died, to identify his signature, his son has been examined. Moreover Ex.D1 is a registered document. 12. In other words, Ex.D1 stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 13. To corroborate such a stand of the defendant, in the cross-examination of plaintiff, it has been elicited that he was residing separately at Dombarahalli Village and he has alienated house property which has fallen to his share in favour of one Basavaraju. 14. He also admits that soon after the death of common prepositus, there was a misunderstanding among the womenfolk and for that reason he had resided separately in the house which has been alienated in favour of Basavaraju and as a consenting witness, he had obtained the signature of first defendant on the said sale deed. 15. These aspects of the matter would make it clear that the properties were divided soon after the death of common prepositus and parties were enjoying their rights separately and in lieu of the house property that has been taken by him, he has relinquished the rights in the suit property. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34080 RSA No. 849 of 2020 16. Thus, when the registered Relinquishment Deed is established before the Trial Court with cogent and convincing evidence on record, dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this appeal. 17. Accordingly, following Order: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT: BHK