- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.819 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI C M NAGARAJ S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. THIMMAIAH K H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI M C KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 W/O B C BASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/O NO.265, PAPANNA COMPOUND 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003 6. KUMAR S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT 7. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 8. SRI CHARANKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 & 8 ARE R/AT NO.187, NEXT TO SADAMMA RAMDAS KALYANA MANTAPA OPP FCI WATER TANK KADUGODI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 067 9. SMT. ANITHA W/O KUMAR D/O LATE M VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT CHIKKASANNE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.116/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA 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 second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that suit schedule properties are the ancestral - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 and joint family properties of plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 6. It is also the further case of the plaintiff that registered sale deeds dated 22.04.1979 and 18.07.1994 executed by his father and defendant No.1 in favour of father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not binding on his share. It is also the contention that decree obtained in O.S.No.306/1994 dated 16.06.2009 is not binding on his share. That defendant No.1 appears and files written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are his self-acquired properties and he has purchased the same under the registered sale deeds dated 01.04.1970, 22.04.1970 and 18.07.1994. 4. The Trial Court considering both the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P12. He also executed a power of attorney in favour of one L. Umashankar, who has been examined as PW1 subsequently and marked the documents at Ex.P13 and P14 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and no documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 are placed. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 as negative. However, accepted the case of defendant No.1 that he had purchased the property and comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the fact that property purchased in year 1994 was out of joint nucleus, nothing is placed on record. The Trial Court also taken note of admission on the part of witnesses particularly, the admission on the part of PW1 that the same is a self-acquired property. In paragraph 23, it is discussed that Item No.1 is self-acquired property of the Venkatarayappa. Therefore, the plaintiff himself admitted that the suit Item No.1 is self-acquired property of the said propositus Venkatarayappa, who has sold the same in favour of one Munivenkatappa. The said admission itself constitute that the suit Item No.1 is not joint family property. As well as the decree passed in O.S.No.306/1994 for present suit Item No.1 is set aside. The contention of the plaintiff that the decree passed in O.S.No.306/1994 is not binding on the share of plaintiff the also not proved and answered Issue No.3 also as negative. In detail discussion was made in paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. 5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points for consideration and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered all the points as negative. On perusal of recital found in Ex.P2 it is clear that scheduled property is the self-acquired property of Venkatarayappa. Apart from that on perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW3, it discloses that they have categorically admitted that Item No.1 of the scheduled property has been granted in favour of Venkatarayappa and it is his self-acquired property. In paragraph 29, it is held that as per Ex.P3, Munivenkatappa had sold Item No.1 of the schedule property in favour of the father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 i.e., Muniyappa on 22.04.1970. Further, Muniyappa had sold Item No.1 of the schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 on 18.07.1984 as per Ex.P4. Possession is also delivered in favour of the defendant No.1 in pursuance of the said sale deed. Even discussion was also made with regard to that when the plaintiff had taken the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 contention that out of the joint family nucleus, defendant No.1 has purchased the property, nothing is placed on record and same was not contended before the Trial Court and nothing mentioned in the plaint. Apart from that First Appellate Court taken note that when the property was purchased by defendant No.1 in the year 1994, the father of the plaintiff Munivenkatappa was alive and defendant No.1 was the junior member of the family. Therefore, when the junior member of the family purchases a property, it is also to be considered as his self-acquired property, unless it is proved that there was sufficient nucleus and defendant No.1 was looking after the affairs of the family properties. Having considered all these materials, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that both the Courts committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that DW1 has given clear admission in the cross-examination that partition effected between the sons of Venkatarayappa on 03.01.1969, thus, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 question of selling the property in the year 1970 by all of them does not arise. The counsel also vehemently contend that Trial Court and also First Appellate Court committed an error in considering the material on record with regard to the purchase of the property by defendant No.1 since he had purchased the property out of the joint family income and the same is also not considered by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal framing substantial question of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that though plaintiff pleaded that suit schedule property is an ancestral property, the same is not substantiated. On the other hand, defendant No.1 took the specific contention that he had purchased the property in the year 1994 and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that in the year 1969, property was allotted in favour of the father of the plaintiff. But counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that once the property was allotted in favour of the father, question of selling the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 property by the father and other brothers along with the plaintiff’s father does not arise. The sale deed executed in the year 1979 will not create any right and the property was sold in the year 1994 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same is also purchased out of the joint nucleus and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record. The same was considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 to PW3 wherein PW1 categorically admitted that it is a self-acquired property of Venkataryappa in respect of Sy.No.101 and the same was earlier granted in favour of Venkatarayappa and all of them have sold the property on 01.01.1974, but he claims that it was a partition. But the plaintiff himself has pleaded in the plaint that the sale deed was executed by the propositus Venkatayarappa and his children in favour of Munivenkatappa, who is the father of defendant No.1 and plaintiff. The said sale deed was marked at Ex.P2, wherein no such recital about the partition as alleged by the plaintiff. It is also admitted by plaintiff that the decree was passed in O.S.No.306/1994 and the present defendant No.1 preferred an appeal against the said decree and the said present plaintiff - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 filed application before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed as per the order at Ex.P6 and Item No. 1 is self- acquired property of the Venkatarayappa. Therefore, the plaintiff himself admitted that the suit Item No.1 is self- acquired property of the said propositus Venkatarayappa who has sold the same in favour of one Munivenkatappa. The said admission itself constitutes that the suit Item No.1 is not joint family property. All these factors were taken note of while answering Issues. The First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, in paragraphs 28 and 29 taken note of Ex.P2 that is sale deed dated 01.04.1970 wherein the original propositus Venkatarayappa had sold scheduled property in favour of Munivenkatappa and also recital of Ex.P2 that scheduled property is the self-acquired property of Venkatarayappa. Apart from that taken note of evidence of PW1 to PW3 as well as the document of Ex.P3. With regard to the contention of joint nucleus is concerned, in detail discussion was made in paragraph 29. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51940 RSA No. 819 of 2024 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: Order The second 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