- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O RAJANNA D/O LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.80, KURUBARAHALLI, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 086. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. OOMAR FAROOQ SON OF ABDUL SHAKOOR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.315, 8TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. LENKAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 3. RANGAMMA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 4. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA SON OF LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064. 5. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH SON OF LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUMENAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU -560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. THIMMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2015 PASSED IN R.A. NO.94/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.552/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015 in R.A.No.94/2013 on the file of I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013 in O.S.No.552/1996, on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The facts in nutshell as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the parties for adjudication of this appeal are, that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 is the purchaser of the schedule property from defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that, her father Lenkappa (defendant No.1) has sold schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 without the consent of the co-parceners in the joint family including the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.552/1996 before the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 3. On service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 4 entered appearance. However, they supported the case of the plaintiff. The defendant No.5 has filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of defendant No.5 that, defendant No.5 had purchased the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995 and defendant No.1 has sold the schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 for family necessity and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish her case, plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and produced six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.5 was examined as D.W.1, and 15 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D15. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013, decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5 has preferred R.A.No.94/2013 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2015, allowed the appeal, consequently set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2013 in O.S.No.552/1996 and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 5. Sri. N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the Trial Court has rightly answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative, holding that defendant No.5 has not proved that sale of suit schedule property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 for family necessity and the said aspect was not considered by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. Nextly, learned counsel submitted that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 is not binding on the plaintiff as the said suit is in respect of the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the schedule property and therefore, contended that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 6. Per contra, Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, it is necessary to extract the genealogy tree which is as under: LENKAPPA (D1) | | RANGAMMA (D2) | | |----------------------- |------------------------| HANUMANTHAPPA NARASIMHAIAH GOWRAMMA (D3) (D4) (PLAINTIFF) 8. Perusal of the genealogy tree would indicate that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 & 4 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995. It is also to be noted as per in the recitals of the registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995, it is stated that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 defendant No.1 was in need of money for maintaining the family and for legal necessities and as such sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5. 9. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Courts below that defendant No.5 has filed O.S.No.59/1997 against defendant No.1 seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the very same schedule property which came to be decreed in favour of defendant No.5 and same has reached finality. In that view of the matter, since the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1997 has reached finality and that apart, the sale of the property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 was for family necessities and it is forthcoming from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, wherein the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not contested the matter on merits but have supported the case of the plaintiff that itself would indicate that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have colluded with the plaintiff for decreeing the suit. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Court below that when the property has been disposed prior to 20.12.2004 by the kartha of the family, the question of availability of joint family property as during - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35638 RSA No. 1527 of 2015 2005 does not arise in respect of the property sold in favour of the defendant No.5 and in fact, proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, saves the earlier dispossession of the property through registered documents prior to 20.12.2004, and as such the impugned Judgment and Decree cannot be found fault with. 10. In that view of the matter, the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by interfering with the finding recorded by the Trial Court, holding that the Trial Court has misconstrued the entire case of the plaintiff and also ignored the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.59/1997, which reached finality. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable grounds to formulate substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23