- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.369 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. P. NAGARAJ S/O LATE SRI. KULLAIAHANA PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1211/1, 5TH CROSS NEW STREET, INDIRANAGAR MYSURU - 570 010. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P. SHIVANANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE P. SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA MYSURU - 570 028. 1(b). SRI. SHANKARA S/O LATE P. SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA MYSURU - 570 028. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 1(c). SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE P. SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA MYSURU - 570 028. 1(d). SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O LATE P. SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA MYSURU - 570 028. 2. SRI. P. SHANKAR S/O LATE KULLAIAHNA PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU - 570 028. 3. P. SWAMY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 3(a). RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3(b). NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LATE SWAMY AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3(c). VENKATAPPA S/O LATE SWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3(d). MANJULA D/O LATE SWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. SRI. H.R. SATHYANARAYANA RAO S/O H.K. RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.28/2 2ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560052. 5. KAMALAMMA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 5(a). MAHADEVA S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5(b). RAVI S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5(c). CHANDRA S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 5(d). SURESHA S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5(e). NANDESH S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5(f). RENUKA D/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5(g). PADMAVATHI D/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT BHUGATHANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. SMT. P. AMBUJA D/O LATE KULLAIAHNA PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK - 570010. 7. SRI. P. RAJU S/O PUTTASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHIKKALI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570010. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 8. SRI. P. MAHADEVA S/O PUTTASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHIKKALI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HAMSA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(d); SRI. NAGARAJA, R.C., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3(a ) to R3(d) and R5 (a) to R5(g); SRI. T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SMT. SUNITA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. AMRUTHA N., ADVOCATE FOR R7 AND R8) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 13.11.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.180/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.808/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 13.11.2014 passed in R.A.No.180/2013 on the file of V Addl. District Judge at Mysuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2013 in O.S.No.808/2006 on the file of Prl. Judge, Small Causes Court and Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaint averments are that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of one K. Puttamadaiah - husband of the plaintiff No.2 and father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 & defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. It is stated that said K. Puttamadaiah died on CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 12.07.2001. After the death of said K. Puttamadaiah, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the khata of the land to an extent of 3 acres and 103/4 guntas changed into the name of defendant No.2 and as such, the plaintiffs have preferred proceedings before the revenue authorities. It is also stated that, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have sold the portion of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that, since the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of children of late K. Puttamadaiah, and therefore, the said sale made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is also forthcoming from the records that, Plaintiff No.2 executed a Will dated 04.03.2008, bequeathing her right in respect of the schedule properties therein in favour of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2 died on 05.03.2009. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.808/2006, seeking relief of partition and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, admitting the relationship between the parties. It is the specific case of the defendant that during the lifetime of late Puttamadaiah, oral partition has taken place in the joint family, allotting the respective shares to the children of Sri. K. Puttamadaiah and pursuant to the same, the revenue entries were changed in the name of children of late K. Puttamadaiah. It is also stated that, plaintiff has relinquished his right in favour of defendant No.3 and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant No.4 has filed separate written statement and contended that, the defendant No.4 has purchased the portion of item No.1 and item No.2 of the suit schedule properties as per sale deeds dated 03.10.2007 and 05.12.2007 respectively from defendant Nos.2 and 3 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 5. Defendant No.5 has filed a separate written statement, admitting the oral partition in the joint family and the defendant No.5 got share in the said partition and she is enjoying the property accordingly, and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs have filed rejoinder to the written statement and confirmed the sale made in favour of defendant No.4. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated following issues for its consideration: "1.Whether Plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3? 2. Whether Defendants prove that there was oral partition in respect of suit property during the lifetime of Puttamadaiah and which was acted upon by parties during 1984? 3. Whether Defendant No.4 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of item No.1 and 2 of suit properties as such his interest is to be protected? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 4. Whether the Defendant prove that all the properties of the joint family are not included in para No.16 of the Written Statement? 5. Whether Plaintiffs proves that all the members of the joint family are brought on record in order to avoid non-joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief as claimed? 7. What order/decree?" 7. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked 28 documents as Exs.P1 to P28. Defendants have examined seven witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.7 and produced 24 documents as Exs.D1 to D24. 8. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2013, dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred Regular Appeal in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 R.A.No.180/2020 on the file of the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 13.11.2014, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.808/2006. 9. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below, the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. This Court, by order dated 10.07.2025, formulated the following substantial question of law: "Whether the appellant proves that the Trial Court without assigning any reasons dismissed the suit in respect of item Nos.4 to 6 of the suit schedule properties?" 10. I have heard Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.1; Smt. Hamsa G., learned - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 counsel for respondent Nos.1(a to d); Sri. R.C. Nagaraja, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3(a) to 3(d) and 5(a) to 5(g); Sri. T.N. Viswanatha, learned counsel for respondent No.4; and Smt. Sunitha Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, both the Courts below have committed an error in misconstruing Ex.D21 and D22, despite the D.W.1 denied his signature on the said document and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by both the Courts below. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendants have not proved the oral partition said to have been made in the joint family of children of K.Puttamadaiah and therefore, the conclusion reached by both the Courts below requires interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, Sri. R.C. Nagaraja, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that, both the Courts below have concurrently held that, there was oral partition in the joint family of plaintiffs and children of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 K.Puttamadaiah and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to Ex.D17 to D21 submitted that the devolution of joint family property was held during the lifetime of late Puttamadaiah and plaintiff No.1 himself gave vardi as per Ex.D21 in respect of the oral partition in the joint family seeking modification of khata to the revenue authorities and the said aspect of the matter was rightly appreciated by both the Courts below and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Smt. Sunitha Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 submitted that, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are also entitled for a share in the joint family property. 14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the original records. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is as under: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 15. Perusal of the genealogy tree would indicate that Sri. K. Puttamadaiah and his wife Smt. Puttamadamma (plaintiff No.2) had six children, namely, P. Shivananjappa (defendant no.1), P. Shankar (defendant No.2), P.swamy(defendant no.3), P. Nagaraj(plaintiff no.1) P. Ambuja (Plaintiff no.3) and Kamalamma (defendant no.5). Perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that it is undisputed by the parties that, the suit schedule properties were purchased by Late Sri. Kulliahana Puttamadaiah Late Smt. Puttamadamma w/o Sri. Kulliahana Puttamadaiah (Dead) (P2) Sri. P Shankar (60 years) (D2) Sri. P Swamy (58 years) (D3) Sri. P. Nagaraj (56 years) (P1) Smt. P. Ambuja (50 years) (P3) Sri. P.Shivananjappa (63 years) (D1) Smt. Kamalamma (41 years) (D5) - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 K.Puttamadaiah during his life time. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule property have to be devolved amongst the surviving heirs of late K.Puttamadaiah as said K.Puttmadaiah died on 12.07.2001. It is also forthcoming from the records that, wife of K.Puttamadaiah i.e., Puttamadamma (Plaintiff No.2) died during the pendency of the proceedings. It is forthcoming from the order of this Court dated 10.07.2025 passed in this appeal, that the appellant herein has restricted their claim in respect of the Item No.4 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. Perusal of the evidence of PW2, PW3, DW1 and DW3 makes it clear that, there was an oral partition during the life time of Puttamadaiah. It is also forthcoming from Exs.D17 to D20, wherein said late K.Puttamadiah himself had given a vardi to the revenue authorities regarding oral partition in the joint family and sought for change of khatha. It is also forthcoming from Exs.D21 and 22, wherein the plaintiff No.1 made an admission with regard to oral partition that took place in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 the joint family of K.Puttamadaiah and his children. It is also forthcoming from his evidence that item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties are the landed property and same were allotted equally between plaintiff No.1, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. Item No.3 has been separated during the partition and identified as ajji palu. Item No.4 of the schedule property was given to defendant No.1 as per Ex.D6. Item No.5 was given to defendant No.2 as per Ex.D10 and accordingly, item No.6 was allotted to defendant No.3. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff No.1 and his father K. Puttamadaiah themselves had admitted about the oral partition in the joint family, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by both the Courts below is just and proper and no interference is called for in this appeal, in respect of the division of properties amongst the children of late K. Puttamadaiah as same was acted upon by the parties and in furtherance of the same, the revenue entries changed in favour of the respective shares of the children of late Puttamadaiah. It is also to be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 noted that, the defendant No.4 had purchased item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties as per the registered Sale Deeds dated 03.10.2007 and 05.12.2007 from defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, as the appellant herein has restricted his claim only in respect of the item Nos.4 to 6 of the suit schedule properties, appellant has not made out a case for interference in this appeal. Therefore, the substantial question of law referred to above, favours the defendants and accordingly, there is no perversity in the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below. 16. In the result, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 17. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the applications in I.A.5/2025 and I.A.6/2025 filed by the defendant No.2 and legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3/respondent No.2 and legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 herein, respectively, are hereby allowed and respondent No.2 and legal representatives of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34086 RSA No.369 of 2015 deceased respondent No.3 are permitted to withdraw the deposit amount before the Trial Court, forthwith. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59