- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. RATNAMMA W/O MAHADEVU D/O MADASHETTY AGED 54 YEARS 2. JAYAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU D/O MADASHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. RANI W/O RAMACHANDRA AGED 49 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHAMALAPURA HUNDI VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 189. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADA SHETTY S/O LATE MADA SHETTY AGED 68 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 2. SHIVARUDRA SHETTY S/O MADA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. GURUSIDDA S/O MADA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SIDDA SHETTY S/O MADASHETTY AGED 44 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT CHAMALAPURA HUNDI VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 189. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 42 RULE 2 R/W SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.43/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJAGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED IN OS No.416/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Sangamesh B. R., learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the dismissal of their suit in O.S.No.416/2013 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.43/2020. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. A suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by contending that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of defendant No.1 in respect of following properties (hereinafter suit properties): 1. ನಂಜನ , ಕಸ ೕಬ, ಕಲರ ಮ ೕದ ಸ ನಂಬ 131/1 ರ ! ೕಣ 2 ಎಕ$ 5 %ಂ&, ' ಸ ನಂಬ 131/2 ರ ! ೕಣ 1 ಎಕ$ 37 %ಂ&, ಎರ ಸ ನಂಬ ಗಳ * ಬಂ+ ಒಂ-ೕ .ರ/01ತ! - ಅದರ ವರಃ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 6ವ :- 7ಟ9 ರ ಜ:ೕ; ಪ=> ಮ :- ಚ@A BಚಯD ನ ಜ:ೕ; ಉತ! ರ :- ಚನF ಯD ದGH ಣ :- Iಂ JರಯD ನ ಜ:ೕ; 2. ನಂಜನ , ಕಸ ೕಬ, ಕಲರ ಮದ ಜಂಜ ನಂಬ 7 ಅಸK LಂM ನಂಬ 10 ರ ' ಜಂಜ ನಂಬ 7/1 ! ೕಣ 100 * 75 * ಬಂ+ಯ ವರ:- 6ವ :- ಗN ' ದO 7P9 ಪ=> ಮ :- ತಮQ ಯD ನ ಮR ಉತ! ರ :- ರ! ದGH ಣ :- ರ! 4. Suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties and belonged to the mother of defendant No.1 by name Doddamadamma. Said Doddamadamma acquired the suit property and katha got transferred in her name and now Doddamadamma is no more. Therefore, the property is standing in the name of defendant No.1 for the purpose of revenue collection. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 5. It is further contended that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 having acquired the suit properties from his mother as he being the only son, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for the share in the suit property and sought for grant of decree for partition. 6. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendant Nos.2 to 4 did not choose to contest the suit and they were placed ex-parte. 7. Defendant No.1 filed detailed written statement admitting the relationship but denied that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for the share in the suit property as it is defendant No.1 who alone succeeded to the property of his mother – Doddamadamma and during his lifetime, suit for partition is not maintainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 8. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues, noted the fact of acquiring the title to the suit property by defendant No.1 is by way of inheritance as defendant No.1 is the sole survivor of his mother – Doddamadamma. Trial Court also noted the fact that during the lifetime of defendant No.1, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 do not have any right to claim the partition and dismissed the suit for plaintiffs. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.43/2020. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the legal and factual aspects of the matter, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds and raising substantial questions of law: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 GROUNDS  The judgment and decree passed by the trial court and first appellate court are erroneous and against the oral evidence produced by the parties. Hence both the judgments are liable to be set aside.  The courts below have failed to appreciate that 1" defendant has clearly admitted in the cross examination that suit properties were purchased in the name of grand mother of plaintiff Doddamma after selling the cattles. It is also clearly admitted that the suit property is purchased by grand mother of the plaintiff and registered in the name of the grand mother. Therefore, in the suit schedule properties though registered in the name of grand mother are the joint family properties and the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the same. Both the courts below have committed error by dismissing the suit.  It is the courts below have also failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs do not have share in the suit schedule property. submitted that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs are entitled for a share after the death of their grand father and grand mother. Since the suit schedule property cannot become the absolute property of the defendant No.1 herein. Hence both the courts have committed error by dismissing the suit. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW i) Whether the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit schedule property? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 ii) Whether the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit by holding that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. When the evidence clearly shows that suit schedule property was purchased after selling the cattles of the family by the grand mother? 12. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the property is the self acquisition of defendant No.1 who is the father of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 being the son of original title holder namely Doddamadamma is incorrect and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. Admittedly, suit properties earlier belonged to Doddamadamma. Revenue entries stood to in her name. After the death of Doddamadamma, defendant No.1 being - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 her only son, inherited entire suit property. As such, in the hands of defendant No.1, suit property is the self acquired property. 15. Thus, the claim made by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 that they are also entitled for share in the property of Doddamadamma cannot be countenanced in law in view of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. 16. Therefore, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court holding that during the lifetime of defendant No.1, plaintiffs could not have maintained the suit is just and proper and requires no further consideration. 17. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the said aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions, substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33747 RSA No. 209 of 2022 the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. However, if the parties are intending to settle the matter amicably, dismissal of the appeal shall not come in the way. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78