- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 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.726 OF 2021 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: SMT SHOBHAMMA W/O ABBAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT JYOTHI OIL BUILDING BHAVANI ROAD, HEBBAGODI ELECTRONIC CITY POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 100 …APPELLANT (BY SRI ANIL KUMAR.A.S FOR SRI PARAMESWARAPPA.C, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT GOPAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 63 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 8 SRI HANUMANTHAPPA DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI RAVI S/O LATE HANUMATHAPPA (DEAD DURING THE PENDENCY OF R.A SINCE DEAD BY LRS) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 2. SMT.PUSHPALATHA W/O LATE RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. KUM.KAVITHA D/O LATE RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. KUM DIVYA D/O LATE RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 5. HARSHAVARDHAN S/O LATE RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3(a)(i) to (iii) ARE R/AT NO.40, KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 100 6. SRI BABU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. SRI SATISH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 46 YEARS 8. SMT UMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA @ MARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE BOMMASANDRA POST ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT- 560099 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 9. SMT.SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O ASHWATHANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NOOR MEDICAL STORE VARTHUR VILLAGE BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK PIN -560 087 10. SRI SUDHAKAR SETTY S/O RAMANNA AGED MAJOR R/AT VINAYAKANAGARA KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TQ PIN 560100 11. SRI P KUMARASWAMY NAIDU S/O PARTHASARATHI NAIDU MAJOR KAMMASANDRA ANEKAR TQ -560100 12. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY MAJOR R/AT KAMMSANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN - 560100 13. SRI UMESH SHETTY D S/O SUBBANNA SHETTY MAJOR RAMA LAKSHMANA HUSKUR GATE APARTMENTS ANANTHANAGAR ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 562 109 14. CHANNIGAPPA S/O MUNICHENNAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 AGED MAJOR HEJJALA POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK PIN - 562109 15. SRI M G GANESH S/O GOPAL AGED MAJOR R/AT 05, 16TH CROSS 'KILARI ROAD BENGALURU 560053 16. SMT LEELADEVI W/O R G JAYARAM MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560 100 17. SMT.YESHODAMMA W/O GANGANNA (HUSBAND NAME WRONGLY MENTIONED IN R.A. AS GANGAMMA) MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TQ PIN 560100 18. SMT.MANGALAMMA W/O RAJANNA MAJOR R/AT KAMMSANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560 100 19. SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O GANGANNA R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560100 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 20. SMT SHARADAMMA W/O CHENNAPPA MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN- 560100 21. SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN -560100 22. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SHESHAGIRI RAO MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN 560100 23. SRI YELLAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATA SWAMY MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN - 560100 24. SRI VIJAY GOPAL S/O PARTHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN 560100 25. SRI CHIKKANNA S/O MOTAPPA MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA ANEKAL TQ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 PIN-560100 26. SRI MARAPPA S/O MOTAPPA R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN - 560100 27. SRI GURU S/O GURURAJ MAJOR R/AT KAMMSANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TQ PIN -560100 28. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA MAJOR R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN- 560100 29. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ARUNACHALAM MAJOR R/AT KAMMSANDRA ANEKAL TALUK PIN - 560100 30. SRI RAMA REDCDY S/O GANAPAIAH MAJOR, R/AT NO.53, MIG KHB COLONY II STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU -560 079 SMT RATHNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 SRI VINOD KUMAR SINCE DEAD BY OTHER LRS OF RATHNAMMA 31. SRI KISHORE J V S/O RATHNAMMA AGED 35 YEARS R/AT NO.56, 1ST CROSS BASAVANAGUDI SHIMOGA SHIMOGA DISTRICT- 577 201 32. MAMATHA D/O RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 5/9, FLAT NO 1, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM MARGOSA ROAD BEHIND HDFC BANK BENGALURU -560 055 33. MALLIKA V @ ROOPA RAMESH D/O RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.156, 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA KANAKAPURA PIN 562117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI V.SHIVAKUMAR ALONGWITH SRI KALYAN.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 AND R7; SRI LETHIF .B, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI PUNEET N.S, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SMT.SHILPA.M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R29; SRI INDRA DHANUSH.M.A, ADVOCATE FOR R30 TO R32; R21 AND R27 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R8, R10 TO R20, R22 TO R26 AND R28 HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025, R2 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN R.A.No.25/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.508/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Anil Kumar A.S., appearing on behalf of Sri C.Parameswarappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri Indra Dhanush M.A., learned counsel for respondent No.30 to 32 and Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7. 2. Defendant No.3 is the appellant who is challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.508/2006, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 common judgment in R.A.No.25/2013 and connected two appeal in R.A.Nos.29/2013 and 25/2013. 3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. A suit for partition came to be filed by Smt. Ratnamma against Gopamma and others. Said suit is one for partition and on contest, came to be decreed in part by the trial Court. 4. Operative portion of the judgment of the trial Court reads as under: “The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in part with respect to the property to Bale Venkataramanappa and excluding the property bearing Sy.Nos.109/1, Sy.No.56 and Sy.No.57. The Plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the property of Bale Venkataramanappa and whatever the transaction held during the pendency of the suit including the Will dated 03.11.1976, are not binding on the plaintiffs 1/4th share to the extent of property belongs to Bale Venkataramanappa. Partition shall be effected and 1/4th share shall be allotted to the plaintiff in the schedule property - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 excluding Sy.No.109/1, Sy.No.56 and Sy.No.57. At the time of effecting the partition, it requires to take note the property already given to the plaintiff and also amount already given to the plaintiff. Parties shall bear their own cost.” 5. Being aggrieved by the same, two appeals came to be filed before the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff Smt. Ratnamma and defendant No.1 Gopamma and others. Defendant No.3 Shobhamma did not choose to file any appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court nor filed any cross objections. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff in part and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. 7. Operative portion of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court reads as under. “The Regular Appeal No.25/2013 filed by the Plaintiffs, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.508/2006 dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is partly allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 The Regular Appeal No.29/2013 filed by the Defendants No.1 and 2, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.508/2006 dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is dismissed. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.508/2006 dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is hereby confirmed and modified and the direction in the Impugned Judgment and Decree that “at the time of effecting the partition, it requires to take note the property already given to the Plaintiff and also amount already given to the Plaintiff”, is hereby quashed and in alternative a direction for accounting is to be made during Final Decree Proceedings. The parties shall bear their respective costs in this Appeal.” 8. Plaintiff and other defendants did not choose to challenge the order of the First Appellate Court. But it is the defendant No. 3, who did not challenge the decree of the trial Court before the First Appellate Court either by filing a separate appeal or cross objections, is challenging the validity of the order of the First Appellate Court before this Court. 9. Sri Anil Kumar A.S., representing Sri Parameswarappa.C., learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that grave injustice has been caused by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 passing the modified decree before the First Appellate Court and sought for admitting the appeal. 10. Plaintiff who did not choose to challenge the judgment of First Appellate Court sails with the defendant No.3 in this appeal. 11. Sri Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 submits that such an appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that defendant No.3 was satisfied with the decree passed by the trial Court and is now bound by the modified decree of the First Appellate Court, having not challenged the same before the First Appellate Court. 12. Having heard the arguments of the parties, this Court bestowed its best attention to the rival contentions of the parties including the maintainability of the appeal. 13. Admittedly, defendant No.3 was a party represented by a counsel before the trial Court and was satisfied with the decree passed by the trial Court inasmuch as she did not chose to file any appeal before the First Appellate Court nor preferred cross objections. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 14. In other words, the decree passed by the trial Court, granting necessary share to the plaintiffs and the defendants as well, defendant No.3 was satisfied. 15. Therefore, she was not an aggrieved party before the First Appellate Court, which is evident in view of the fact that she did not chose to file any cross appeal or cross objection. 16. In the absence of any such grievances before the First Appellate Court insofar as defendant No.3 is concerned, she cannot be permitted to say that she is aggrieved by the order of the judgment of the First Appellate Court in modifying the share of the plaintiff. 17. Accordingly, second appeal filed by a person who did not challenge the trial Court decree before the First Appellate Court cannot be held to be an aggrieved person so as to maintain the second appeal. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34746 RSA No. 726 of 2021 (ii) Insofar as the equities are concerned, parties are at liberty to plead before the final decree proceedings. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR