- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O MR. C M NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A MATADA BEEDI KAMAGERE VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PAVITHRA W/O MR. S. NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.380, MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD T K EXTENSION MYSURU. 2. SMT. VIDYA W/O MR. A.S. NAGAMALLU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A ALUR VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 570001. 3. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A MATADA BEEDI KAMAGERE VILLAGER KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440. 4. MR. RAJU S/O MR. ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A KAMAGERE VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571440. 5. MR. M. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A KAMAGERE VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT -571440. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S B TOTAD., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. P.C. SUNITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 04.01.2023 NOTICE TO R4 & R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 24.09.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.10/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOLLEGALA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by defendant No.2 assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2016 in R.A.No.20/2014 on the file of Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, Sitting at Kollegala, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014 in O.S.No.10/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kollegala, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their status before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the children of defendant No.1 - Smt. Shivamma and late L. Mahadevappa. It is further stated in the plaint that, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 - L. Mahadevappa died on 10.01.2006. It is also stated that, the plaintiffs have sought for partition in respect of the suit schedule properties and in the meanwhile, the defendant No.1 has sold the item No.1 property in E schedule in favour of defendant No.3 on 20.02.2006 and item No.2 of the property in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 favour of defendant No.4 on 21.10.2006 and therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.10/2008 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. 4. After service of notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed detailed written statement admitting the fact that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2, and further have taken a specific plea that defendant No.1 had executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 on moral obligation to discharge the liability of deceased husband of defendant No.1, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The defendant No.2 in addition to the plea raised by defendant No.1 has raised an additional plea that her husband is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than 30 years and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit in respect of the item Nos.5 and 8 of B schedule property seeking claim under perfecting title by adverse possession. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed separate written statement stating that the E schedule property has been sold in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 the defendants 3 and 4 based on the sale agreement dated 27.07.2005 said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiffs, and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have paid entire sale consideration in respect of the subject land in E schedule property and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings and material on record, framed issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, first plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined one more witness as P.W.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P1 to P45. The defendants have examined themselves as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and got two more witnesses examined as D.W.5 and D.W.6. The defendants produced 30 documents which were marked as Exs.D1 to D30. The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014, decreed the suit in part holding that plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/4th share each in suit A schedule item 1 properties and suit B schedule properties and suit C schedule properties and suit D schedule properties. The suit came to be dismissed in so far as E schedule property is concerned. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 has preferred - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 R.A.No.20/2014 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the respondents therein. The First Appellate Court by considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 24.09.2016, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10/2008. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 has preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard Sri. Keshava Murthy B., learned counsel for the appellant / defendant No.2, Sri. S.B. Totad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs, and Smt. P.C. Sunitha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 / defendant No.1. 8. Sri. Keshava Murthy B., learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the grievance of defendant No.2 is only with regard to sale deed said to have been executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 by defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is having undivided right in respect of the item 2 of suit schedule property and suit schedule E property, however the said aspect of the matter was not considered by both the Courts below. In that view of the matter, he further contended that, execution of the sale deed made in favour of defendant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 No.3 and 4 is not for family interest, that too, by defendant No.1 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Smt. P.C. Sunitha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 / defendant No.1, sought to justify the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and referred to the sale deed produced at Ex.D23 and submitted that father of the plaintiffs has received the entire sale consideration amount for the medical expenses and thereafter the defendant No.1 has executed the registered Sale Deed and therefore, sought for confirmation of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. Sri. S.B. Totad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs, sought to justify the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, would indicate that defendant No.1 has married to L. Mahadevappa and in their wedlock, four children were born, namely Smt. Jayamma (D2), - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 M. Marisamy (died as a bachelor), Smt. Pavithra (P1) and Smt. Vidya (P2). 12. The genealogy tree of the parties is set out as under: 13. It is not in dispute with regard to relationship of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that schedule properties belong to Sri. L. Mahadevaiah and on his demise, devolved in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiffs. On careful consideration of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 and the recitals in Ex.D23 and D24 would make it clear that item Nos.1 and 2 of schedule E property has been sold in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 for valuable consideration and the said sale has been made to clear J¯ï. ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ¥Àà (¥Àw) ²ªÀªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw D1 ²æêÀÄw dAiÀĪÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ®UÀߪÁVzÉ D2 JA. ªÀÄj¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄUÀ (¥Ëw) ®UÀߪÁVgÀĪÀÅ ¢®è ²æêÀÄw ¥À«vÀæ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ®UÀߪÁVzÉ P1 ²æêÀÄw «zÁå ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ®UÀߪÁVzÉ P2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30087 RSA No. 70 of 2017 the loans raised by the husband of defendant No.1 Sri. L. Mahadevappa. 14. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the E schedule property has been sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 for family necessity and to clear the debts raised on account of medical expenses incurred by her husband - L. Mahadevappa, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper and no interference of this Court is called for in this appeal. The above said aspect of the matter was rightly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and therefore, I do not find any perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 15. In the result, as the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under S.100 of CPC, no interference is called for in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. SD SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49