- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1794 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHOBHA D/O LATE PULIYANDA M NANAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. PULIYANDA N BOJANNA S/O LATE PULIYANDA M NANAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BEING MENTALLY RETARDED REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO. 1 AS NEXT FRIEND BOTH ARE R/AT MEKOOR VILLAGE POLIBETTA AMMATHI NAD VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571218 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT P N SHYLA D/O LATE PULIYANDA M NANAIAH W/O SRI TAKARAM RAI Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.1686, 6TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, II STAGE VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE- 570 017 2. PULIYANDA BOPANNA S/O LATE PONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. PULIYANDA CHONDAMMA W/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 4. PULIYANDA GANAPATHY (SOUMYA ) S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESPONDENT No.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT MEKOOR VILLAGE POLIBETTA, AMMATHI NAD VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571218 5. PULIYANDA MADAPAP (SATHYA ) S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT MEKOOR VILLAGE POLIBETTA, AMMATHI NAD VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571218 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2024 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5002/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU- MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The suit was filed by the two children of Nanaiah and made other children of their uncle Chengappa and P.M. Ponnappa. The claim is made of 1/3rd share from defendant No.1 i.e., their sister and sister who has been examined before the Trial Court as DW1 categorically admitted that after the death of their father, there was no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 any partition and father left his mother, herself and also the plaintiffs and also categorically admits that there was no any division among themselves and also categorically admitted that in Ex.P17, categorically stated that she has no any objection to partition the property and also categorically admitted that they are in joint possession of the property and till date, no division was taken place. Having taken note of this admission, the Trial Court considering the material and record in paragraph 20 held that there is an admission that the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 died on 08.03.2005 and also taken note of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 which came into force with effect from 09.09.2005 and considering the material and record particularly, the admission, the Trial Court granted 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs and also defendant No.1 and in respect of mean profits, the Trial Court held that there must be an enquiry to that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 effect in a separate proceeding. The said judgment and decree is challenged before the First Appellate Court. 3. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal and also hearing both the parties, formulated the point and having reassessed the material available on record and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of VINEETA SHARMA vs RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 being children of Nanaiah are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties and held that the findings of Trial Court are based on sound principle of law and confirmed the same. 4. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are owned by P.M. Nanaiah himself and also in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 part with other defendants Nos.2 to 8 and document Ex.P1 to P7 which speaks about the rights of several persons over the plaint schedule properties and in the absence of those persons the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit and hence, this Court as to frame substantive question of law since both the Courts have committed an error in holding that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule lands though it was admitted by plaintiff No.1 that plaintiff No.2 was married to a person other than Kodava community. 5. Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that 1/3rd share each is granted in respect of the share of Nanaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and also the defendant No.1. Hence, this Court is of he opinion that the Trial Court rightly granted 1/3rd share each since there is an admission on the part of DW1 that there was no partition among the family of their father. It is the fact - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 that along with their mother also they succeeded to the property of their father Nanaiah. But now admittedly mother is not alive. Hence, both plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as well as defendant No.1 are entitled for a share in the property of their father – Nanaiah. In the judgment of the Trial Court specifically mentioned that they are claiming share of 1/3rd from defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is none other than elder sister of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration and though not in detail discussed with regard to the admission on the part of DW1 wherein she categorically admitted that there was no any division among the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and also defendant No.1 and DW1 is none other than the defendant No.1. When such being the case, 1/3rd share is granted among plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 in respect of the property of their father Nanaiah. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantive question of law as contended by the counsel for the appellants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28599 RSA No. 1794 of 2024 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN