- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42351 RSA No. 491 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.491 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 4. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL THE ABOVE APPELLANTS R/AT KOLIMENAHALLI VILLAGE POSHETTIHALLI POST, NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42351 RSA No. 491 of 2025 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KOLIMENAHALLI VILLAGE POSHETTIHALLI POST NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208. 3. DHANALAKSHMAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KOLEMENAHALLI VILLAGE, POSHETTIHALLI POST NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-561 208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRI K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND 2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.71/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42351 RSA No. 491 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants was absent in the morning. Hence, this Court passed over the matter and when the matter was called in the afternoon, no representation on behalf of the appellants. The order sheet discloses that on 23.09.2025, learned counsel for the appellants prayed time and learned counsel for the appellants is not pursuing the matter diligently, even in spite of opportunity is given. Even on 08.09.2025 also, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. On 23.08.2025 also, even on second round of calling of cases, appellants and their advocate was absent and continuously not pursuing the matter. It appears that appellants are not interested in pursuing the court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that one of the appellant in R.A.No.71/2024 i.e., appellant No.4 - Smt. Dhanalakshmamma had filed a regular second appeal before this Court in R.S.A.No.203/2025 against the concurrent finding of the Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42351 RSA No. 491 of 2025 Court and the First Appellate Court and this court in detail vide judgment dated 11.03.2025, on thorough appreciation of material available on record comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1; she is a coparcener as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and she is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties and did not find any merit to entertain the second appeal, even though the defendants claim that already there was a partition and the plaintiff is not a party to the said partition. Hence, comes to the conclusion that defendant No.1 passed away during the pendency of the suit and did not execute any testamentary document in favour of any other person. 4. When such being the case and the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of defendant No.1, granted the relief of partition. Hence, the counsel would submit that when one of the defendants, who had filed the appeal before this Court is considered, there is nothing to consider in this present second appeal and all the defendants have contested the matter before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42351 RSA No. 491 of 2025 urging the similar grounds and the same has been considered by both the Courts and concurrent finding is given and this Court also turned down the arguments of appellant No.4 of first appeal, who is the defendant No.7 before the Trial Court and continued the order of both the Courts in R.S.A.No.203/2025. When such being the case, when this Court has already taken note of the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that there is no merit and on perusal of the grounds urged in this second appeal also, similar grounds are urged. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law, since the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court do not suffer from any perversity. Accordingly, the regular second appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38