- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46753-DB RFA No. 1743 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MALAMMA @ KENCHAMMA W/O AMASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS APPELLANT No.1 & 2 ARE R/A BEERIHUNDI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570008 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P NATARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A BEERIHUNDI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570008 …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED:04.01.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46753-DB RFA No. 1743 of 2014 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.6.2014 PASSED IN O.S.1025/2013 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2014 passed in O.S.No.1025/2013 instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the original suit. 3. The plaintiffs and the sole defendant are children of late Sri Honnammana Moode Sannegowda and Smt. Beeramma. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking partition of the four schedule properties mentioned hereunder :- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46753-DB RFA No. 1743 of 2014 "SCHEDULE 1) Agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 61 to an extent of 5 acre 30 guntas out of which 3 guntas is karab, situated at a Kumarabeedu Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on: East by:Road West by:Land bearing Sy. No.60 North by:Land bearing Sy. No.62 South by:Road 2) Agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 91/4 to an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas, situated at a Mallahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on: East by:Land bearing Sy.No.91/3 West by:Land bearing Sy. No.91/2 North by:Land bearing Sy. No.91/1 South by:Land bearing Sy. No.91/A 3) Agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 85/5 to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas, situated at a Mallahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on: East by: Road West by:Land bearing Sy. No. 85/4 North by: Land bearing Sy. No.85/3 South by Land bearing Sy. No.85/1 4) A house property situated at Beerihundi Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring East to West 80 feet, North to South 80 feet, bounded on: East by: Road West by: Hithilu (Back Yard) North by: Oni (Lane) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46753-DB RFA No. 1743 of 2014 South by : Private Property" 5. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has admitted that the agricultural lands were transferred by the father in favour of the defendant vide M.R.No.18/1988-1989 and 1989-1990. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that the suit schedule properties were the self acquired properties of the father of the defendant as per the mutation register. 6. The point for determination in this appeal is as to: "Whether the plaintiffs could have sought partition of the suit schedule properties that stood transferred to, in the name of the defendant way back in the year 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 when plaintiffs never challenged the said transfer by their father to the name of the defendant ?" 7. If the plaintiffs admit that these properties were the self acquired properties of their father and the said properties had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46753-DB RFA No. 1743 of 2014 been transferred in the year 1989 and 1990 in favour of their brother i.e., defendant. The partition suit in respect of those suit schedule properties was not maintainable, hence it has rightly been dismissed. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.06.2014 and thus we dismiss this appeal. 9. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interim applications if any, also stand rejected. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11