- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.261 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMALINGA GOWDA D, S/O LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 561 211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATESH N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMA, D/O LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA W/O SRI. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. NOW R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 560 068. 2. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE: 561 211. 3. SMT. CHANDRALEKHA, D/O LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA, W/O S P GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 561211. 4. SRI. D P CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, R/AT LAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 561 211. 5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SRI. KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEAS 7. SMT. ASHA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 8. SRI. RAJANNA S/O DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/AT SHETTIGARI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN CODE 560 064. 9. SRI. S NAGANANDA, S/O C SHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 10. SRI S VISHWANATHAM S/O C SHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.9 AND 10 ARE R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE 561 211. 11. SRI. S P GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE PUTTIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BENGALURU VENKATAREDDY ESTATE KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHANAMANI TALUK, PIN NO. 563 125. 12. SRI. SUNDARESH, S/O H KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.193, THINDLU MAIN ROAD, SAHAKARA NAGARA POST, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALARAJ V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.8/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.175/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3. 2. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.31/2018 that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Narayanagowda and Narayanagowda was having two wives namely Lakshmamma and Gangamma. Smt.Gangamma was not having any issues and Lakshmamma having three children i.e., 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant and also the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Narayanagowda during his lifetime executed a release deed in respect of seven - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 items of the property in favour of defendant No.2 as well as his mother Lakshmamma in the year 1972 and Lakshmamma died intestate and hence, claimed the share over the property of Lakshmamma. The main contention of the appellant herein that already there was a release deed prior to the birth of Padma and hence, the entire property belongs to the 2nd defendant. The said contention cannot be accepted and the release deed in favour of Ramalingegowda as well as Lakshmamma and admittedly Lakshmamma has not executed any testamentary document and hence, automatically all the three children represents the share of property of Lakshmamma to the extent of half share and the same is also considered by the Trial Court. 3. The other contention of the counsel appearing to the appellant that when there was already a judgment and decree of compromise in between the Ramalingegowda and Chandralekha and also contend that Padmamma was not a party and though Padmamma was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 made as party, but she was not a party to the compromise. When such being the case, the very contention of the appellant‘s counsel cannot be accepted that both the courts have committed an error and hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court in granting the share in respect of certain items of the property which are with the appellant and no share was granted in respect of the property which have already been sold by the 2nd defendant. When such being the case, when the plaintiff has not filed any appeal as against declining the grant of share in respect of property which have already been sold by the defendant No.2 and hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law and the same is considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in respect of the remaining properties which are standing in the name of defendant No.2 and the same was also pertains to the property of Lakshmamma - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53147 RSA No. 261 of 2025 and not made out any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) Second Appeal is dismissed. ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38