- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31242 RSA No. 527 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. R. GOVINDANAIKA, S/O LATE D.R.RANGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. R. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE D.R.RANGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. PUTTANAIKA S/O LATE D.R.RANGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT UPPINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571301. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGASWAMY, S/OLATE D.R.RANGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. JAYAMMA, DEAD LRS RAJAPPA 2(a) RAJAPPA, S/O JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31242 RSA No. 527 of 2014 2(b) SIDDARAJU, DEAD 2(c) GOWRAMMA D/O JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT UPPINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, LAKSHMAMMA - DEAD D/O LATE D.R.RANGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT UPPINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, ABATED ON 30-7-2012 3. RAJAMMA D/O LATE D.R.RANGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT VIDYANAGARA EXTENSION, OOTY ROAD, NANJANGUD-571301 MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 (a) & (c), R2(b) DIED AS PER CAUSE TITLE, R3 DEAD) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 1.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.84/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 13.7.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.143/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., NANJANGUD. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31242 RSA No. 527 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit is decreed and the appeal filed by defendants No.1 to 3 is dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 2. Appellant No.1 is alive, appellants No.2 and 3 are said to be no more. Some of the respondents are not alive and application is filed to substitute the legal representatives of those deceased respondents. Since the appeal is not yet admitted and it is heard on Admission. 3. Learned counsel appearing for defendants No.1 to 3/appellants would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition in respect of one residential house described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff claims that the property belonged to the father of plaintiff and defendants, he died intestate and thereafter the plaintiff has acquired joint right over the said property as a Class-I along with defendants No.1 to 6. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31242 RSA No. 527 of 2014 4. Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit and took a stand that the family properties have been partitioned and the suit schedule properties are allotted to the share of defendant No.3. 5. Before the Trial Court, both the parties have led oral evidence but none of them produced documentary evidence. 6. The Trial Court concluded that the defence of previous partition and allotment of share to defendant No.3 is not established and decreed the suit. 7. First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/ appellants would submit that the suit could not have been decreed as the mandatory requirement under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 is not followed inasmuch as the property record pertaining to the suit property is not produced. Thus, he would submit that without establishing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31242 RSA No. 527 of 2014 the existence of the suit property, the suit for partition could not have been decreed. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. It is no doubt true that the property record pertaining to the suit property is not produced. However, what is required to be noticed is defendants No.1 to 3 have not disputed the existence of the suit property. The suit property is said to be a residential house, defendants No.1 to 3 contend that the residential house belongs to defendant No.3 and it is allotted to the share of defendant No.3 in the previous partition. 11. Thus, in view of the defence so raised, the entire burden lies on defendant No.3 to establish the previous partition. Since the extent of the suit schedule property is not in dispute, this Court does not find any serious error in plaintiff not producing the property record as the existence of the property is admitted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31242 RSA No. 527 of 2014 12. It is also noticed that the Trial Court has awarded 1/7th share noticing the fact that the deceased father of the plaintiff and defendants has left behind seven Class- I heirs. 13. This being the position, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 14. Since this appeal is dismissed, pending applications do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16