- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2036 OF 2021 (PAR-) CONNECTED WITH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2067 OF 2021 IN RSA No. 2036/2021 BETWEEN: SRI P KEMPANNA S/O PILLAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S (a) SRI. AKKALAPPA S/O. LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS (b) SRI. PILLAPPA S/O. LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS (c) SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS (d) SMT. SUNITHA W/O. LATE DEVARAJU DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS (e) KUM. MONISHA D/O. LATE DEVARAJU GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE SHE IS MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER APPLICANT NO.1(d) (f) SMT. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS (g) SRI. SHEKAR S/O. LATE P. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.N. NITHISH, FOR SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT B NARAYANAMMA D/O T.M. BACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT K.NARAYANAPURA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 KOTHANURU POST, BANGALORE-560077. 2. SMT PADMA D/O T.M. BACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT K.NARAYANAPURA, KOTHANURU POST, BANGALORE 560077. 3. SMT ANASUYA D/O T.M. BACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.1865/15, 20TH MAIN, NEAR MARUTHI MANIDRA, 21ST CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. 4. B GANGADHAR DEAD BY LRS SMT NAILINI W/O B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 5. BHARAT KUMAR S/O B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 6. BHOOVAN KUMAR S/O B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 7. SRI B MUKUNDA S/O T.M. BACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 R/AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101. 8. SRI K V SURESH S/O K.N.VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KANJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED IN RA NO. 40/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2015 PASSED IN OS NO. 170/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKBALLAPUR. IN RSA NO. 2067/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K V SURESH S/O K N VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 R/AT KANAJENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 562 101 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITHISH FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. B NARAYANAMMA D/O T M BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT K NARAYANAPURA KOTHANURU POST BANGALORE 560 077 2. SMT PADMA D/O T M BACAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT K NARAYANAPURA KOTHANURU POST BANGALORE 560 077 3. SMT ANASUYA D/O T M BACAHPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1865/15 20TH MAIN NEAR MARUTHI MANIDRA 21ST CROSS VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 040 B GANGADHAR DEAD BY LRS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 4. SMT NAILINI W/O B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 5. BHARAT KUMAR S/O B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 6. BHOOVAN KUMAR S/O B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 7. SRI B MUKUNDA S/O T.M. BACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 562101. 8. SRI P KEMPANNA S/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 562 101 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA FILED UNDER ORDER 42 RULE (1) R/W. SECTIONJ 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED IN RA NO.38/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 CHIKKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.170/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. K.N. Nithish for Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Narayana Swamy P.M., learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. These two appeals filed by the purchasers for the appellants in these appeals of the property of the joint family. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 3.1 Common prepositus was one Sri. T.M. Bachappa who had a wife by name Akkayyamma. Couple had five children namely Narayanamma, Padma, Anasuya, Gangadhara and Mukunda. 3.2 In the year 1995, said Bachappa died without leaving any Will. Daughter's namely Narayanamma, Padma and Anasuya filed a suit No.170/2007 claiming that they are coparceners of the joint family along with Bachappa and two defendants and sought for the partition of the suit properties which was refused by the defendants who are the brothers of the plaintiffs and thus laid the claim in O.S. No.170/2007. 4. In the meantime, these two appellants purchased land in item No.2 and item No.4 in entirety respectively. 5. Suit was contested and decreed by the learned Judge as prayed for granting 1/5th share to the plaintiff. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 6. Being aggrieved by the same, these appellants filed R.A.No.40/2015 and R.A.No.38/2015 respectively. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and consequently judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.170/2007 was confirmed. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, purchase of item Nos.2 and 4 of the suit properties are before this Court in this Appeal, on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS The impugned Judgment and Decree of the courts below is opposed to the probabilities of the case, material on record and, as such, unsustainable in law. The courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Same has led to passing of impugned erroneous judgment and decree. The appreciation of evidence by the courts below is perverse. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 The courts below have failed to notice that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The appellant being the bonafide purchaser of the suit property, no decree could have been passed concerning hios property. The courts below failed to appreciate that the suit was barred by partial partition. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: 1) Whether the appreciation of evidence and documents by the courts below is perverse? 2) Whether the courts below failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs were not entitled for share in the suit properties, in the factual matrix of the matters? 3) Whether the suit was bad for partial partition, moreso, in the admitted facts of the case? 4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below is liable to be set-aside? 5) Whether the allotment of shares made by the courts below is proper? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 6) Whether the courts below erred in not appreciating that the appellant was bonafide purchaser for value? 9. Sri. K.N. Nithish, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that there was no share allotted to Akkayyamma as the suit properties are the self acquired property of Sri. T.M. Bachappa and soon after the death of Sri. Bachappa, parties got their rights to the suit property by inheritance. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs did not deny that Akkayyamma is their mother and there was no share granted Akkayyamma and parties be relegated to the final decree proceedings to work out the equity. 11. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, the Trial Court after due trial has specifically recorded a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 finding that suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Bachappa. 13. When Bachappa died intestate, by inheritance his wife and children equally succeeded to the suit properties. Therefore, decreeing the suit granting 1/5th share to the plaintiffs and defendants has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 14. In fact, plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share and share of Akkayamma is to be carved out by granting 1/6th share to Akayamma as well along with plaintiffs and defendants. 15. It is also pertinent to note that Item Nos.4 and 2 have been sold to the present appellants respectively. Item Nos. 4 and 2 had been purchased by the present appellants in entirety from Akkayamma and her two sons namely Gangadhara and Mukunda who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court, sale in favaour of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 present appellants is only to the extent of 50% or half share in favour in the total of item Nos.4 and 2. 16. In other words, these appellants have to satisfy the plaintiffs with respect to their half share (1/6p1 + 1/6p2 + 1/6p3 = 1/2). 17. Therefore, the appeal needs to be allowed by modifying the share of the plaintiffs from 1/5 each to 1/6 each. 18. Insofar as the half share of the plaintiffs in item Nos.4 and 2, respectively, parties are at liberty to work out their remedy before the final decree proceedings and seeking for equitable partition by each of the appellants in accordance with law. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the substantial questions of law namely whether the allotment of share made by the Courts below is proper, is held in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33358 RSA No. 2036 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 2067 of 2021 favour of the appellants in both these appeals and shares are to be modified. 20. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeals are allowed-in-part. (ii) Each of the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties as against 1/5th share granted by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iii) Office to pass modified decree accordingly. (iv) No costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC/RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44