- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NEELAMMA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LALITHAMMA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O THE DAVANAGERE SUGAR, FACTORY QUARTERS, KUKKUWADA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT PRESENT ADDRESS: POST OFFICE ROAD,MAYAKONDA -577501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH R. NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2015 PASSED IN RA.NO.66/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, AT DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.06.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.134/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2015 passed in R.A. No. 66 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2010 passed in O.S. No. 134 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn), Davangere. The trial court had partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 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 brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant are the daughters of late Siddalingappa. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of declaration, partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the properties described in the suit schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of the defendant took her to the Sub- Registrar’s office on 26.06.2003 and got a partition deed registered without disclosing its contents to her. The plaintiff contends that she was unaware of the nature and consequences of the said deed and, therefore, claims entitlement to a share in Item No. 1 of the suit schedule property along with the defendant. The plaintiff also contends that Schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 'B' property is the ancestral property of both parties and seeks her rightful share in the said property as well. Based on these assertions, the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No. 134 of 2007 before the Trial Court. 4. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended specifically that she had developed the Schedule 'A' property by raising a loan and installing a borewell. She further contended that she had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff in lieu of her share in Schedule 'A' property, which was accepted by the plaintiff and consequently, a registered partition deed was executed on 26.06.2003, duly signed by both parties. Therefore, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit in respect of Schedule 'A' property, however, with regard to Schedule 'B' - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 property, the defendant admitted equal rights and claimed a half share along with the plaintiff. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. 6. To prove their case, the plaintiff examined 08 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked 21 documents as Exhibits P1 to P21. On the other hand, the defendant examined 03 witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and marked 18 documents as Exhibits D1 to D18. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 23.06.2010, decreed the suit partly, granting relief in respect of Schedule 'B' property, however, rejected the claim in respect of Schedule 'A' property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred Regular Appeal in R.A. No. 66 of 2010 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 defendant. Upon re-appreciation of facts and evidence, the First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 12.02.2015, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in OS.No.134 of 2007. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in respect of the Schedule 'A' property, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. 9. I have heard Smt. Sowmya R., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Santhosh R. Nelkudri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. Smt. Sowmya R., learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff is illiterate and lacks worldly knowledge. It was contended that the plaintiff was misled by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 defendant and her husband, and the contents of the partition deed were never explained to her. Furthermore, she denied having received any consideration amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as alleged by the defendant. It is submitted that this aspect was established through the plaintiff’s evidence but was wrongly overlooked by the courts below. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant sought interference by this Court. 11. Per contra, Sri. Santhosh R. Nelkudri, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff did not step into the witness box to adduce evidence. Instead, her son was examined as PW1. He pointed out that in Criminal Proceedings in C.C. No. 1380 of 2007, the said PW1 had admitted that Schedule 'A' property was allotted to the defendant under the registered partition deed. Therefore, he argued that, there is a clear and binding admission on record. In - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 12. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the both the courts below. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, the Genealogical Tree is set out as under: Siddalingappa S/o Chappale Hanumanthappa Smt. Shivamma W/o Siddalingappa Smt. Neelamma Smt. Lalithamma - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 13. Perusal of Genealogical Tree of the parties, as set out in page 9 of the appeal memo, clearly shows that the plaintiff and defendant are the daughters of late Siddalingappa and Smt. Shivamma. It is not disputed that the schedule properties are joint family properties. The parents of the parties are no more. The plaintiff sought to nullify the registered Partition Deed dated 26.06.2003, under which the Schedule 'A' property was allotted to the defendant and a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was allegedly paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the said deed was executed by committing fraud upon her by taking the plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar Office. In this regard, the deposition of PW1 (son of the plaintiff ) in CC No. 1380 of 2007, reveals that schedule 'A' Property has been allotted to the defendant. In that view of the matter, the trial court has rightly relied on this admission and rejected the claim made in respect of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 the Schedule 'A' property. The Trial Court has equally divided the schedule 'B' property in favour of both the plaintiff and defendant. 14. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court, specifically the recitals in the registered Partition Deed produced at Exhibit D1, makes it clear with regard to consideration and consent of the parties, which has not been effectively rebutted by the plaintiff. The courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in Schedule 'B' property, and have justly rejected her claim in respect of Schedule 'A' property. Therefore, I do not find material irregularity or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Since, the plaintiff/appellant has not made out a ground for formulation of substantial question of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30548 RSA No. 1105 of 2015 law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at stage of Admission stage itself. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33