- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1010 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SRI GANGAHANUMAIAH (SINCE DEAD BY LRS) 1. SMT MARIGAMMA W/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR 2. SRI CHADNRAIAH G LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR 3. SMT MANJULA G W/O ASHWATH KUMAR H AGED MAJOR 4. SRICHANNATHIMAYA G S/O ALTE GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR 5. SMT GANGARAJAMMA G W/O MAHESH AGED MAJOR R/O KITTAIANAPALYA DODDABELE THYMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 6. SRI GANGARAJU G S/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 7. SRI RAVIKUMAR G S/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR 8. KUM SUMA G D/O LATE GANGAHAUMAIAH AGED MAJOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO 4 AND 6 TO 8 ARE R/AT GOVENAHALI VILLGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK SMT GANGAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI THIMMAJAMMA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS) S/O THIMMARAYAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS) 9. SMT TRIVENI W/O SUBRAMANI G K D/O LATE K THIMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO 3 KARAVIREDDIHALLI VEGAMADAGU KOLAR DISTRICT 563136 10. SMT T SUMITHRA W/O CHANANTHIMMAIAH G D/O LATE K THIMMARYAPPA R/O NO 11 NEAR GANESH TEMPLE GOVENHALI VILLGE KULIVANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562111 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 11. SMT T PRIYANKA W/O GIRISH N D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA R/AT NO 130 3RD CROSS, GNANABHARATHI BDA LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK MARIYAPPANA PALYA BANGALORE 560056 12. SMT GANGAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA D/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RA/T BEERAGONDANAHLALI VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 13. RAMAIAH S/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 14. SMT SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT MAHIMAPURA RA/T MAHIMPURA VILLAGE KULUVANAHALLI POST THYAMGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 15. SRI HANUMEGOWDA S/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 16. SMT SHASHIKALA D/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT ARELEDIBBA VILLAGE T BEGUR POST - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 17. KRISHNAIAH S/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MOLONGATIHALLI VILLAGE (HOSUR) KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 18. SRILAKSHAMANA S/O LATE KARIYANNA ALIS KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MOLONGATIHALLI VILLAGE (HOSUR) KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 19. SMT RAJAMMA W/O C KEMAPAIAH AGED 78 YEARS R/O NARASAPURA VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLUY HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 20. SMT LAKSHMAKKA W/O K HANUMANTHAIAH AGED 61 YEARS R/O GOVENAHALLI VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. HEMALATA MAHISHI.,ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 AND: SRI ANJINAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS) 1. GANGAMMA W/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS SRI THIMMAPPAIAH S/O LATE ANJANAAP (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS) 2. SMT NANJAMAM W/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RANGASWAMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS 3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMAIH AGED MAJOR 4. RANGANATH S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 6. LALITHAMMA D/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT GOVENAHALLI VILLGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 7. KAMALAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 7 ARE R/AT GOVENAHALLI VILLGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 8. SMT MAHIMAKKA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O TAVAREKRE VILALGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE 562130 9. SRI T THIMMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O T J RAMAIAH C/O T J RAMAIAH NO 5277 THIMMSHETTAPAP LAYOUT SUBASHNAGAR NELAMANGALA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 10. SMT LASKSHMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH W/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O LAKKENAHALLI VILLGE THYAMGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 11. SRI RANGAIAH S/O LATE ANJANPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARSR R/T GOVENHALLI VILLGE THYAMOGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 12. SRI HANUMAIAH S/O ALTE ANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS SRI THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE ANJANPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS ) 13. LASKHAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED 75 YEARS R/T GOVENHALLI VILLGE THYAMOGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 14. GANGAHANUMAKKA D/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/T GOVENHALLI VILLGE THYAMOGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 15. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS R/T GOVENHALLI VILLGE THYAMOGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 16. RADHA D/O THIMMEGOWDA W/O NGARAJ AGED 50 YEARS R/T NO 16, 2ND FLOOR 3RD MAIN, 4THC ROSS VIANAYAKANAGAR BANGALORE 560073 17. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE ANJANAPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GOVENAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. HUCHCHAMMA SINCE DIED BY LRS 18. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/O MALONGATHIHALLI (HOSUR) T BEGUR POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 19. SOMAKKA W/O LATE PUJANMAYA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 3RD MAIN ROAD T DASARAHALLI KEMPEGOWDANAGR BANGALORE 560057 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 20. SMT RANGAMMA W/O LATE RANGAYYA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT THIPPAGANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK THAYAMGONDLU HOBLI KULAVANAHALLI POST BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 563135 21. SMT LAKSHAMMA W/O ASHWATHNARAANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS H NO 245, 4TH MAIN ROAD 4THC ROSS (NEAR THIMBERYARD) KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR TUMKURU ROAD BAGNALORE 560057 22. SRI HANUMEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMAMIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RANGASWAMY S/OLATE THIMAMIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS 23. SMT RANGAMMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 24. SRI DAYANANDA S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 25. KUM BABY D/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE A MINOR - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 REP BY HER MOTHER RANGAMAM R3 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MALONAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L.M.RAMAIAH GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNDARESH G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R11 AND R15) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.24/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2006 PASSED IN OS NO.87/1993 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. AND) AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. L M. Ramaiah Gowda learned advocate on behalf of Sri. Sundaresh G, learned counsel appearing for Caveator/Respondent No.11 and Respondent No.15. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 2. The present second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs whose suit which was originally numbered as O.S.No.215/1985 renumbered as O.S.No.87/1993 for partition and separate possession came to be dismissed which was confirmed in RA No.24/2009. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The Appellants/Plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.215/1985 in the court of Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore. On 29.08.1988 the said suit was dismissed for default. In Misc. No.2/1989 the said Judgment and Decree was set-aside and the suit was restored to file and registered as O.S.No.87/1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jn. Dn.) Nelamangala. 3.2 After recording of evidence and hearing of arguments on both sides the said O.S.No.87/1993 was dismissed on 14.08.2006. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 3.3 Aggrieved by the said Judgement & Decree the Plaintiffs preferred the appeal R.A.No.221/2006 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Bangalore and after its transfer to Nelamangala, the appeal was renumbered as R.A. No.24/2009. There was delay in filing the above appeal and hence the appellants had filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal and the same was allowed by this Hon'ble Court by its order dt. 18.12.2023. 3.4 The original plaintiffs, Gangahanumalah and his mother, Gangamma filed O.S.No.87/1993 (New No.) against the original Defendants (1) Anjinappa, (2) Smt. Huchamma, (3) Hanumegowda, (4) Rangaswamy for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit properties located at Malanagathihalli, Govenahalli, Harivesandra and Alanayakanahalli totally numbering 29 lands. 3.5 Subsequent to the death of original plaintiffs and Defendants 1, 2 & 4 during the pendency of the suit - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 and the Appeal their L.Rs were brought on record in their places. Plaintiffs and Defendant 1 and Defendants 2 to 4 belong to branches of three brothers, namely Channathimmaiah (Plaintiff's Branch), Anjinappa (1st Defendant's Branch) and Thimmaiah (Defendants 2 to 4 Branch) respectively. Out of them Anjinappa (1st Defendant) was the eldest brother and Kartha of the family. 3.6 Original propositus of the family of Plaintiffs and Defendants was one Thimmegowda. The family tree is as under : Thimmegowda Wife, Thimmakka D/o Hanumegowda of Malanagathihalli Anjinappa Channathimmaiah Thimmaiah Hanumakka (D-1) Wife Gangamma Wife Huchamma W/o Hanumanthaiah (Plaintiff -2) (D-2) Gangahanumaiah (Plaintiff-1) Hanumegowda Rangaswamy (D-3) (D-4) - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 3.7 It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Thimmegowda was the propositus of the family and all the suit schedule lands are joint family properties /ancestral properties belonging to the joint family of Plaintiffs and Defendants and that the family still continues to be Joint as no partition has taken place among the members of the joint family of three brothers till the date of filing of the suit for partition. In the year 1967 Defendants 1 to 4 tried to commit fraud on the Plaintiffs in order to deprive them their legitimate 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties by creating a fraudulent, concocted Partition Deed dt.26.05.1967 which was not accepted by Plaintiffs and it was not a valid Partition Deed although it was registered by the Defendants dividing the family lands among themselves and also including the first son of Anjinappa, namely, Thimmappayya as they themselves had not accepted or acted upon the themselves and also including the first son of Anjinappa, namely, same and hence it is not binding on Plaintiffs, Hence they issued a Legal notice. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 Defendants gave an untenable reply denying Plaintiffs rights in the family lands, Notice dt. 12.08.1985 claiming their 1/3rd share to which Defendants 3.8 Thereafter the Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.215/1985 for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share as stated above. 3.9 On receipt of suit summons, in the beginning all Defendants were represented by one and the same advocate. Later on the first Defendant Anjinappa appointed his own advocate and filed his separate written statement. Whereas Defendants 2 to 4 and legal representatives of Anjinappa filed separate written statement. Subsequent to the death of first Defendant, additional written statement separately on their behalf, contradicting the averments and admissions made by original Defendant No.1 Anjanappa in his written statement. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 3.10 In his written statement Anjinappa admitted that all the suit lands were ancestral/joint family properties of the family and that there was no partition in the family and that they still continued to be joint, there was no partition that took place under the Registered Partition Deed dt.26.05.1967 among himself and other Defendants and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in all suit lands and that he had no objection to allow the suit. 3.11 Quite contrary to said plea, legal representatives contended in their additional written statement denying all the averments in the Plaint, stating that there was oral partition in the family 50 years earlier in which Plaintiffs' Predecessor, Channathimmaiah took away his share of properties and started living separately, later on Defendants 1 to 4 divided the family properties among themselves under Registered Partition Deed dt.26.05.1967 excluding Plaintiffs and that all the Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 properties as per the allotment of lands under the Registered Partition Deed dt.26.05.1967 and hence Plaintiffs are not entitled to any share as Channathimmaiah had already taken his share in an oral partition and they pray to dismiss the suit. 4. Defendants 2 to 4 in their elaborate written statement denied all the averments in the plaint and set up their defence as under: (a) There was prior oral partition 50 years back and under and under that Channathimmaiah had taken away his share in the family properties and the following lands were allotted to his share: "1) Sy.No.13/9-2-17 G of Govenahall 2) Sy.No.13/2-1A-02 G of Govenahell 3) Sy.No-2/8-0-05 G of Govenahalli 4) Sy.No.2/4-0-04 G of Gevenahalli 5) Sv. No.37/5 -0-20 G of Alanayakanahalli 6) Sv. No.46/1-6-00 G of Alanayakanahalli 7) Sy.No.16/1-2-06 G of Alanayskanahalli Totally-12A-14 G. 8) A house" - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 4.1 These Defendants' second contention is that all the suit schedule lands the Propositus, Thimmegowda and that they belonged to another family of Malanagathihalli, whose propositus was one Doddahanume Gowda Hanumalah. It is their contention that this Doddahanumegowda Hanumalah had given his daughter, Thimmakka in marriage to Thimmegowda who was the propositus of the family of Plaintiffs and Defendants, and that his only son was Hanumanthiah and that he had two wives one of them was Hanumakka who was the daughter of propositus Thimmegowda and Thimmakka (sister of Hanumanthalah) and that he did not have children, hence he had brought up Thimmalah (third son of Thimmegowda) in his house and later on this Hanumanthaiah settled Malanagathihalli lands on the said Thimmalah who is the husband of Defendant-2 and father of Defendants 3 & 4, under the Settlement Deed dt.06.03.1953 and hence all Malanagathihalli lands belong - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 to Defendants 2 to 4 as they are the owners of the same and that these lands are not ancestral properties. 4.2 These Defendants (2 to 4) further contend that the Partition Deed dt. 26.05.1967 among Defendants 1 to 4 is a genuine one in which Channathimmaiah's Branch (Plaintiffs) were excluded. Hence suit is barred by time. 4.3 These Defendants state that subsequent to the Partition Deed dt.26.05.1967 Anjinappa (original 1st Defendant) gave Malanagathihalli lands in favour of Defendants 2 to 4 and hence in addition to lands fallen to their share under the Partition Deed dt.26.05.1967 they are also in possession and enjoyment of Malanagathihalli lands as owners of these lands. Hence they pray for dismissal of the suit. 4.4 All the Defendants state that Plaintiffs committed fraud and made Anjinappa (Def-1) to file his - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 separate written statement admitting the claims of the Plaintiff. 4.5 After the issues were framed, Gangahanumalah (1st Plaintiff) examined himself as PW-1 and produced and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-34 to prove his case. L.Rs of Defendant No.1 examined Thimmappaiah S/o. Anjinappa as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits D-1 to D-19. On behalf of Defendants 2 to 4, Hanumegowda @ Hanumaiah (Defendant-3) examined himself as DW-2 and got marked exhibits D-20 to D-90. 5. Sri. Gangahanumaiah being the son of Channathimmaiah and his mother filed a suit for partition against his uncles which was numbered as O.S.No.215/1985. Later on, the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.87/1993. In the plaint, it is contended that the suit properties originally belonged to Thimmemgowda and father of the first plaintiff and husband of the second plaintiff being one of the sons of Thimmegowda had right, title and interest in the suit property and therefore without - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 allotting any share in the suit properties, partitioning the property among the uncles has affected his rights and sought for share in the property. 6. Learned trial judge after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and by taking note of the fact that the PW-1 i.e., the first plaintiff specifically deposed before the court that he came to know about the registered partition among his uncles about thirty years earlier, and taking note of the fact that the deposition was of the year 1993 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the defendants were successful in establishing the prior partition. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed an appeal before the first appellate court in RA No.24/2009. 8. Learned judge of the first appellate court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 01.04.2024 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 dismissed the appeal of the defendants holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit properties remained as joint family properties and the finding recorded by the trial judge that there is a prior partition which is based on material evidence on record. 9. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the second appeal is filed on following grounds and on following substantial questions of law: "1) Whether the Appellate Court was right in ignoring the weight of evidence on record altogether and basing its finding only on a part of the cross-examination of PW-1 in coming to the conclusion that there was prior oral partition in the joint family of Plaintiffs and Defendants? 2) Whether the findings of the courts below are recorded without proper construction of the documents and that the courts acted on assumptions not supported by evidence? 3) Whether the findings of the courts below are vitiated for the reason that there is absence of consideration of material evidence and that there is essentially erroneous approach to the matter? 4) Whether the finding of facts regarding oral past partition 50 years back arrived at by courts below are not supported try material evidence and that the courts below have - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 ignored the important evidence on record in arriving at such findings? 5) Whether findings of court below regarding oral prior partition are perverse and illegal being based on no evidence and that on the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion? 6) Whether the courts below misdirected themselves in appreciating the evidence? 7) Whether the courts below have utterly failed to apply recognised principles of Hindu Law to the case on hand? 8) Whether there is perversity in appreciation of facts and evidence in determining the issue regarding prior oral partition in spite of there being sufficient evidence against it? 9) Whether the first appellate court was wrong in refusing to consider questions of law raised by the Plaintiffs based on the documentary evidence on record, during argument, by saying that either they were not raised in the appeal memo or they were raised for the first time? 10) Whether the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.9 and considered additional documents before giving findings in the case as all those additional documents were undisputed documents and material evidence in coming to the conclusion about prior oral partition? 11) Whether First Appellate Court ignored and failed to consider the legal rights of women legal heirs in the family? - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 12) Whether the First Appellate Court committed injustice to the Plaintiffs /Appellants by refusing to consider the questions of law raised in the appeal and by non-consideration of material evidence in the case?" 10. Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal contended that the oral partition set up by the defendants is not established by placing cogent evidence on record inasmuch as, the defence evidence and witnesses for the defendants were not even born when the earlier partition has taken place and therefore, the matter needs to be admitted of further consideration. 11. Per contra, Sri. L M Ramaiah Gowda learned counsel representing the Respondents supports the impugned judgement. 12. Having heard arguments of both the sides, this court perused the material on record very meticulously. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the property belonging to Thimme gowda was not in dispute. 14. Defendants have taken a specific contention of the prior partition wherein plaintiff's father was also allotted a share in the suit property which has been mortgaged by him and the material evidence placed on record is one such mortgage deed wherein father of the plaintiff has specifically stated that '£À£Àß »¸ÉìUÉ §AzÀ eÁUÀ''. Therefore, the trial judge recording finding that there is a prior partition is just and reasonable. 15. Learned judge in the first appellate court after bestowing his best attention to the materials on records reappreciated the material evidence and factual aspects and recorded a categorical finding that the properties is not a joint family property. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also specific admission made by PW-1 in examination in - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29655 RSA No. 1010 of 2024 chief itself in the year 1993 that he came to know that there was a registered partition among his uncles about 30 years earlier, this court is of the opinion that none of the substantial questions of law referred to above does not merit for further consideration. 17. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BSV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 53