- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. SHANTHARAJA S/O LATE ESURU GUTHYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT HONDADAKERI BEHIND TALUK OFFICE SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHWETHA D/O SHANTARAJA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SHAKTHI GAS GODOWN NITTUVALLI, NEW BADAVANE DAVANAGERE – 577 004. 2. KUM. PALLAVI D/O G. SHANTARAJA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONDADAKERI BEHIND TALUK OFFICE SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 3. KUM. PAVANA D/O G. SHANTARAJA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT HONDADAKERI BEHIND TALUK OFFICE SHIKARIPURA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427. 4. SMT. NIVEDITHA W/O BHOJARAJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE HOSUR HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427. 5. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O G. SHANTARAJA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SHAKTHI GAS GODOWN NITTUVALLI, NEW BADAVANE DAVANAGERE-577 004. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.52/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.110/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The suit is filed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.110/2010 for partition and separate possession. In the suit, it is specifically pleaded that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and the same are liable to be partitioned and plaintiff is entitled for separate share and possession of the same. It is also contented that sale deed dated 07.03.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff in the suit properties. 4. The defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement contending that she is the bonafide purchaser of the suit item No.2 property of the properties and in the event of plaintiff succeeding in the suit, the property allotted to be sold - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 by defendant No.1 to be allotted to the share of defendant No.1. The Trial Court also framed additional issue in view of pleading of the parties whether the plaintiff proves that without obtaining divorce from plaintiff’s mother Smt. Lakshmidevi, second marriage of defendant No.1 is not valid, thereby, defendant Nos.2 and 3 born in the said wedlock are not entitled to share in the suit schedule properties, whether the compromise arrived in Crl. Misc. No.98/1998 and in O.S.No.204/1998 are not binding on her share and whether defendant Nos.1 to 3 prove that suit of the plaintiff is hit by Section 11 CPC in view of compromise and settled the matter in O.S.No.204/1998. 5. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence before the Court and comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and also in respect of item No.2 of the properties is concerned i.e., sale deed dated 07.03.2007, answered the same as ‘negative’ and answered issue Nos.3 and 4 as ‘affirmative’ and issue No.5 as ‘partly affirmative’ and comes to the conclusion that already property is sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 and there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 cannot be any share in respect of item No.2 is concerned and granted only half share in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. 6. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, appeals are filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the points whether the finding of the Trial Court that plaintiff is the daughter of Smt. Prema and defendant No.1 is contrary to the material available on record, whether the finding of the Trial Court that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are illegitimate children and therefore, they have no share in the suit schedule properties is contrary to the material available on record, whether the finding of the Trial Court that the suit of the plaintiff is not hit by Section 6 of CPC and the suit is within time is contrary to law and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 admitted the relationship between the parties and also taken note of the fact that D.W.1 has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 specifically admitted that plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1 through Smt. Lakshmidevi. D.W.1 also admits that he married Smt. Lakshmidevi, who is defendant No.5 in the above case. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that Smt. Prema is the wife of Sri Shantharaj i.e., defendant No.1. From their wedlock, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are born. Therefore, it is clear that Sri Shantharaj married Smt. Prema also for the second time. In other words, during the subsistence of first marriage, the defendant No.1 married Smt. Prema for the second time. Smt. Prema is the second wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are her children. 7. The First Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, particularly registered partition deed dated 30.09.1999 and on careful perusal of the said document, comes to the conclusion that in the compromise entered between the husband and wife in Crl. Misc. No.98/1998, the plaintiff was not a party to the said compromise petition. Moreover, the recitals of the compromise petition not supports the case of the defendants’ and also the answer elicited from the mouth of witness is extracted in paragraph No.27 and also taken note of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 the fact that as per the pleadings of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 had undivided interest in the family properties i.e., the suit schedule properties. Having family properties and saying in the compromise petition that he has no immovable properties is nothing but making false statement in the compromise petition. Moreover, the plaintiff has received the amount as maintenance. But, she has not received the said maintenance as her share in the family properties. The family properties were not the subject matter of the criminal petition (Ex.D2). In other words, the family properties have not been described in the compromise petition. Moreover, some of the suit schedule properties are not the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.204/1998. When such being the case, contending that the compromise petition is binding on the plaintiff is not correct. The said fact has been clearly appreciated by the Trial Court and compromise petition recorded in criminal miscellaneous not binds the right of the plaintiff. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 8. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that principles of res-judicata applies in a situation where the suit is disposed of based on the compromise entered between the parties and independent suit cannot be filed challenging the compromise decree and whether the children of second wife be denied their legitimate share in the ancestral properties of their father. The counsel would vehemently contend that when already there was a compromise by the mother on her behalf as well as on behalf of the plaintiff, there cannot be a second suit. The counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the compromise entered in Criminal miscellaneous, wherein mother not only compromised the matter by receiving the money on her behalf and also on behalf of the daughter. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, suit is filed for the relief of partition which is in respect of the property which the defendant No.1 is having in his name and also taken note of the fact that compromise entered in Crl. Misc. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 No.98/1998 is only in respect of maintenance and in respect of the properties is concerned, there is no compromise in the criminal miscellaneous and also taken note of the fact that subject matter in Crl. Misc. No.98/1998 and the present suit are different. It is also important to note that even in the compromise entered between the parties in respect of property of defendant No.1 is concerned, there is no compromise at all. The learned counsel for the appellant also not disputes the fact that in the original suit in O.S.No.110/2010, there is no compromise at all and the suit got dismissed by filing a memo. Hence, the very contention that res-judicata applies cannot be accepted and matter has not been adjudicated, particularly in respect of the properties which the defendant No.1 is having. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and compromise is entered only in respect of maintenance is concerned in criminal miscellaneous No.98/1998 and not in respect of the family properties and there was no such recital in the said compromise also. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51056 RSA No. 448 of 2025 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64