- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BASAPPA @ BASAVARAJ S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O GALIHALLI VILLAGE BIRUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK -577 116. 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O BASAPPA @ BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HOUSE WIFE AND AGRICULTURIST R/O GALIHALLI VILLAGE BIRUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK-577 116. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ONKARAMMA D/O LATE RANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O YAREHALLI VILLAGE BIRUR POST, BIRUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK-577 116. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 2. SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE AND AGRICULTURIST R/O GALIHALLI VILLAGE, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK-577 116. 3. SMT. LEELAVATHAMMA D/O. LATE RANGAPPA W/O HANUMANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O HULLEHALLI VILLAGE BIRUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK-577 116. 4. SMT RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE RANGAPPA W/O. PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O GALIHALLO VILLAGE BIRURA HOBLI KADUR TALUK-577116 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED IN R.A.No.66/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.279/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court granting the relief of partition in respect of item Nos.1 to 6 and dismissing the suit in respect of item Nos.7 to 10 of the plaint schedule properties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession and mesne profits, it is mainly contented that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of both the parties. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief. 4. The defendant No.2 appeared and filed written statement that suit is bad for partial partition and also took the specific contention that defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are liable to discharge the loan due to Vijaya Bank and also other contention was taken that written statement schedule properties are joint family properties of both the parties. The Trial Court having - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 considered both oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 as ‘partly affirmative’ and issue No.2 as ‘negative’, in coming to the conclusion that suit is not bad for partial partition and answered issue No.3 as ‘affirmative and issue No.4 as ‘partly affirmative’ and additional issue No.1 as ‘partly in the affirmative’ and particularly, the contention of the appellants herein with regard to the contention that defendant No.2 has purchased item Nos.5 and 6 of written statement schedule property in the name of defendant No.4 and they are the joint family properties. Except relying upon the document of sale deed Exs.D7 and D8, nothing is placed on record and hence, the very contention of the appellants/defendant are not accepted by the Trial Court, since the property becomes absolute property of defendant No.4, in whose name property was purchased and also invoked Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff became the absolute owner of item Nos.5 and 6 of written statement schedule property and defendant Nos.2 and 5 have failed to prove that item Nos.5 and 6 of written statement schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and answered additional issue No.1 as ‘partly in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 the affirmative’ and granted the relief that plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for 1/25th share in item Nos.1 to 6 and dismissed the suit in respect of item Nos.7 to 10. The claim of defendant No.2 with respect to item Nos.5 and 6 of written statement schedule properties is also dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed by the appellants herein. The First Appellate Court also reassessed the material in R.A.No.66/2021 in keeping the grounds which have been urged and formulated the point whether the defendant Nos.2 and 5 established that the written statement schedule item Nos.5 and 6 properties are acquired out of joint family funds in the name of defendant No.4 and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court also while reassessing the material taken note of the factual aspects and comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the fact that property was purchased in the name of defendant No.4 out of the joint family nucleus, nothing is placed on record and concurred with the judgment of the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in not appreciating the material available on the record, particularly in respect of item Nos.5 and 6 of the written statement schedule properties and committed an error in declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and not considered the specific leading. The very conclusion of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court invoking Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is erroneous. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law. The counsel appearing for the appellants also vehemently contend that even defendant No.4 did not choose to appear and lead any evidence that property is her self-acquired property and in the absence of same, both the Courts have committed an error. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the material on record, no dispute with regard to granting of share in respect of item Nos.1 to 6 and the plaintiff has also not challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in respect of item Nos.7 to 10 of the plaint schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 properties and only defendant Nos.2 and 5 have filed the first appeal before the Appellate Court that Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that property purchased in the name of defendant No.4 is not out of joint family fund and inspite of specific pleading is made, even the First Appellate Court also committed an error. 8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this appeal is that First Appellate Court and the Trial Court, even inspite of sale deeds are produced and other evidence are placed on record, committed an error in holding that said property becomes the property of defendant No.4 and committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record. No doubt, the second appeal can be admitted, if any perversity is found in appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and except producing the sale deeds which stands in the name of defendant No.4, nothing is placed on record to show that out of the joint family income, those two properties are purchased i.e., sale deeds Exs.D7 and D8 dated 07.01.2008 and 21.12.2015. In the absence of any documentary proof, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 question of considering the same does not arise, when specific defence was taken by the appellants that those properties are purchased out of the joint family income and in the absence of any documentary proof, question of coming to an other conclusion does not arise. Learned counsel also submits that the appellants have not placed any document before the Trial Court in order to prove the factum that those properties are purchased out of joint family income. When such material is not placed before the Court, question of coming to other conclusion does not arise and this Court does not find any perversity in the finding and there must be a material with regard to the perversity is concerned and with regard to the question of law is concerned, when the property stands in the name of defendant No.4 and she becomes the absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the same was also rightly pressed into service by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that property stands in the name of defendant No.4 and she becomes the absolute owner of the property and when both the question of law and question of fact is considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45513 RSA No. 1693 of 2024 frame any substantial question of law and the appellants have not made out any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46