- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1696 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. CHIKKANNA S/O. GULE RAMAIAH @ RAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, BYRAMMA, W/O. LATE. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. JAYARAMAIAH S/O. LATE. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. KEMPAIAH W/O. LATE. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, APPELLANTS-1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF HARALURU JPOST, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK & DIST - 572101. 4. SHOBHA H C D/O. LATE. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT DIBBUR POST, TUMAKURU TALUK 572101 5. SAVITRAMMA W/O. LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 6. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 7. PREMA D/O. LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 8. CHIKKARAMAIAH @ RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, A. YADIYURAPPA, S/O. LATE. CHIKKARAMAIAH @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 9. KEMPAIAH S/O. LATE. CHIKKARAMAIAH @ RAMAIAH, APPELLANTS-5 TO 9 & 5(a) TO (b) ARE R/AT. HARALURU POST, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101. (APPELLANTS-8 & 9 ARE ALSO THE LRs OF RESPONDENT-11 IN THIS APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DODDARAMAIAH S/O. LATE. PUTTARAMAIAH, DEAD BY LRS, A. CHIKKAKADARAMMA W/O. LATE. DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 2. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O. LATE. DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. RAMALINGAIAH S/O. LATE. DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. HARISH KUMAR S/O. LATE. DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. LOKESH S/O. LATE. DODDARAMAIAH, RESPONDENTS-2 TO 5 ARE R/O. HEGGUNDA VILLAGE, SOMAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562111. 6. N. CHIKKANNA S/O. LATE. PUTTARAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, H.C. RATHNASREE, D/O. N CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7. H C LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O. N CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 8. H C LOKESH S/O. N CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 9. ASHALATHA D/O. N CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 RESPONDENTS-6 TO 9 ARE R/AT: VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, BEHIND SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE, VINOBANAGAR, TUMAKURU-572 101. 10. 11. MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT HARALURU VILLAGE, GULURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN -572104 LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HARALURU VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK & DIST-572 101. SINCE DEAD BY HER LR’s (HER LRs ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANTS-8 & 9 IN THIS APPEAL V.O DATED 24.02.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, 3 TO 7 & 9; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 & 8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025, APPELLANT Nos.8 AND 9 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R-11; R-10 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2019 PASSED IN RA.No.147/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 26.06.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.108/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard on admission of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. C. Sunil Kumar Patel and Sri. K.R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. The legal representatives of the original defendants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in OS No.108/2003 confirmed in R.A.No.147/2012 insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. 3. For the sake of convenience, the following are the properties which were subject matter of the suit as per the plaint, as under: “1. The land bearing Sy.No.40/2, measuring 7 acres 12 guntas, assessed at Rs.5.79 ps. situated at Haralur village, Gulur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, bounded on: East: Land of H. Basavaraju son of Shivarudraiah. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 West: Land of Chikkaravaiah son of Lakkanna & Narasimhaiah of Kummanjipalya. North: Land of Muddainh son of Basavaraju of Kummanjipalya. South: Land of Nanjamari Shivanna s/o Rudrappa. 2. Land bearing Sy.No.4/2, and 4/3, totally measuring 3 acres 4 guntas, and 6 acres 6 guntas, assessed at Rs.2.36 ps. and Rs.4.75 ps. respectively, out of which 1/5th share of Hissa of the plaintiff and defendants, measuring 1/5th Hissa, bounded on: East: Rudraradhya s/o Revenappa's Hissa. West: Land of Gangalakshmamma, North: Rajanna s/o Gangaiah's land. South: Land of Chandranna. This land is situated at Haralur village, Gulur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. 3. Vacant site bearing khatha No.148/31, situated at Haralur village, bounded on East: Road. West: Vacant site. North: Site No.121/126. South: House of Rudrappa. 4. Vacant site bearing khatha No.121/126 of Haralur village, bounded on: East: Road. West: House of Narasimhaiah. North: Private palu. South: Vacant site bearing No. 148/31. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 5. Mud roofed house situated at Haralur village, bounded on: East: Road, West: Private property. North: House of Kariyappa South: Private Property. Bearing Khaneshumari No.71/80-81 in the name of Kempa S/o Rama.” 4. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 4.1 The Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties and to declare that proceedings in OS No.346/64, which ended in Execution No.298/67 and the Sale Deed dated 30.01.1971, as not binding on them. As per the plaint averments, Ramaiah was the common propositus. He had two sons namely, Kempaiah and Puttaramaiah. The plaintiffs are the sons of Puttaramaiah and they had two brothers by name Chikkaramaiah, who died unmarried in the year 1967 and another brother by name Kencharamaiah, who is unheard of since 1973. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 4.2 Kempaiah had four sons who are the present defendants and during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 died and his wife and children are brought on record. 4.3 It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties and there is no division. Father of the plaintiffs, after marriage lived in Heggunda Village, to carry on the business. As such, brother of Puttaramaiah by name Kempaiah was looking after the properties. Such being the case, plaintiff No.1 filed an application for transfer of khatha in respect of the land in Sy.No.40/2 to half extent before the Tahsildar on 16.11.1990 and came to know that there was an objection filed by the defendants Nos.1 and 2. Dispute was resolved in RRT No. 68/90-91 and names of the plaintiffs were ordered to be entered in the revenue records. 4.4 Against the said order, defendants filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RRT Appeal 96/93-94. By order dated, 17.01.1997, the Assistant Commissioner set aside the said order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 4.5 It is further contended that before the Assistant Commissioner, defendants took a contention that father of the plaintiffs executed a Relinquishment Deed on 06.05.1928 and according to the said Relinquishment Deed, an order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner stating that the said relinquishment deed is a forged and concocted document. 4.6 It is also contended by the plaintiffs that on 09.01.1942, Puttaramaiah and Kempaiah executed a registered Mortgage Deed in favour of Syed Mohiuddin @ Peer Sahib of Heggunda Village, which was later redeemed during the lifetime of Kempaiah and Puttaramaiah, which shows that property was in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants. 4.7 It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that Kempaiah raised loan from one Byralingaiah on the security of the land in Sy.No.40/2 and the said Byralingaiah filed O.S.No.346/64 for foreclosure of the mortgage amount. The said suit on contest came to be decreed and the same was put in execution in Execution No.298/67. In the said proceedings, the property in Sy.No.40/2 was put to auction and defendant - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 No.1 and his father, Guleramaiah purchased the said property on 21.11.1970. 4.8 Based on the same, the Assistant Commissioner had set aside the order of the Tahsildar, which is incorrect and sought for decreeing the suit. 5. Pursuant to issuance of suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, admitted the relationship, but denied all other factual aspects and maintained the defence that Puttaramaiah executed a Relinquishment Deed on 06.05.1928. Therefore, there is no continuation of the joint family nor the properties were joint family properties and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Suit on contest came to be decreed by granting half share in the suit properties No.1 and 3 to 5. 7. The suit against the item No.2 came to be rejected. The plaintiff did not choose to contest further about the dismissal of the suit in respect of item No.2 of the suit properties; Whereas it is the defendants who filed an appeal - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 challenging the decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit in respect of item Nos.1 and 3 to 5. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the material on record, re-appreciated the legal and factual aspects of the matter and allowed the appeal in part and maintained the grant of half share to the plaintiffs in respect of item Nos.1, 3 and 5 and suit came to be dismissed as against item Nos.2 and 4. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this court in this appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: “GROUNDS It is submitted that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded and admitted that the plaintiff's father had left the union of family and settled in Heggunda village after his marriage and had further carried on his business. The suit item No.1 was auctioned and it was purchased by one Byralingalah through court auction. There upon the defendant No.1 and his father had purchased the suit item No.1 with their earnings and the plaintiffs have falled to show the flow of the income into the joint nucleus. The said material fact is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 not considered and appreciated by the trial Court and first appellate court. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have purchased land in Sy.No.29/3 situated at Bennegere village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The said property is not included for partition and further the MR Register clearly shows that the said property has been divided between the plaintiffs by way of partition by themselves. It clearly shows that the father of the plaintiffs was ousted from the joint family in the year 1928 Itself by executing an unregistered relinquishment in respect of suit schedule joint family properties. The said factor has to be considered as corroborative evidence in support of the appellants' case. Hence, this appeal. 1st appellate court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree which are opposed facts, evidence and law. The appellants may be permitted to urge any other ground in support of his case, at the time of arguments on merits. No other litigations or proceedings are pending before this Hon'ble Court, with regard to the subject matter in dispute in this appeal, between the same parties.” “SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether the 1st Appellate court is justified in partly allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 trial court and decreeing the suit of plaintiff in respect of partition of suit item No.1, 3 and 5? 2. Whether the first appellate court is justified in holding that the defendant No.1 and his father are not the absolute owners of suit item No.1 as per Sale deed dtd: 21.11.1970 and further the plaintiff and defendants still constitute undivided family though the plaintiff's father had ousted from the joint family after his marriage?” 10. Sri. Sunil Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and decreeing the suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit property has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 11. Per contra, Sri. K.R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supports the impugned judgment. 12. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs did not choose to contest the suit in respect of dismissal of their suit in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 respect of item Nos.2 and 4 of the suit properties and therefore it has become final. 13. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court bestowed its best attention to the material on record. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that all that the defendants are contending is that there was a Relinquishment Deed in the year 1928. 15. The disputed Relinquishment Deed is marked as Ex.D-1 before the Trial Court. It is the categorical finding recorded by both the Courts that Ex.D-1, relinquishment deed is not proved by the defendants. 16. Further, the said Relinquishment Deed is not a registered document. If at all the contention of the defendants is to be accepted that there was a relinquishment, as is contended, there was no necessity for Puttaramaiah and his family members to join for the execution of the Mortgage in favour of Syed Mohiuddin. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34447 RSA No. 1696 of 2021 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the contentions taken on behalf of the defendants that there was a disruption of the joint family by virtue of Relinquishment Deed vide Ex.D-1 stands not established. 18. The relationship among the plaintiffs and defendants have been admitted, decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court granting half share in respect of item Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 which was modified by the First Appellate Court by denying the share of the plaintiffs in item Nos.2 and 4 of the suit properties does not require interference by this court in this second appeal. 19. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, following: ORDER i) Appeal is meritless and thereby dismissed. ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38