- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49423 RSA No. 312 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.312 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. R. SHANTALA W/O G.K. DIWAKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS C/O K. KRISHNAIAH MARUTHI FRAME WORKS SHANKARA ROAD TIPATURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 2. SRI. R. VENKATESH KUMAR S/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE ATHAGUR HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. 3. SMT. DURGA DEVI W/O OMPRAKASH Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49423 RSA No. 312 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT FORT STREET, MADDUR MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. 4. SRI. ASLAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KAG PROVISION STORES OLD POST OFFICE GALLI, MADUR MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.44/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR. 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 matter is listed for admission. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons in respect of declining to grant the relief in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court granted the relief of 1/3rd share in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties, but declined to grant the relief in respect of item No.4 on the ground that the property was sold by the father and the same is for legal necessity. The Trial Court also while - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49423 RSA No. 312 of 2025 considering the particular issue whether it is a sale for legal necessity and she is the bonafide purchaser, particularly in paragraph Nos.13 to 16 discussed in detail and also taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 that father was in need of money for the business, since he was running the business of manure and considering this as well as the evidence of D.W.1, who has been examined on behalf of the defendants, who had purchased the property was not subjected to cross-examination and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.16 of the judgment and dismissed the claim in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. 2. The First Appellate Court also in R.A.No.44/2019 on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo formulated the point whether the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit in respect of item No. 4 of the suit schedule properties and whether it requires interference. On re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court also extracted the answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, wherein also categorical admission was given - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49423 RSA No. 312 of 2025 that father was doing business and the said business is also a family business and there was profit and loss in the said manure business and father was not having any bad vices and he was in need of money and he himself was taking care of the entire family. It is also an admission that the said two sale deeds binds all the family members. Considering all these admissions on the part of P.W.1, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that Trial Court was not justified in shifting the burden on the appellant to prove that item No.4 of the suit schedule properties was not sold for legal necessity having held in paragraph No.21 of the judgment that respondent No.3 has to prove that item No.4 was sold for family necessity and no dispute that item No.4 is also an ancestral and joint family property. When such being the case when the Court comes to the conclusion that the same was an ancestral and joint family property ought not to have held that the property is purchased by the defendant and that he is a bonafide purchaser. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49423 RSA No. 312 of 2025 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the material available on record, both pleadings and also evidence available on record, the Trial Court in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.13 to 16 and also taken note of admission and the fact that D.W.1 was not cross-examined. Apart from that, even First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, taken note of admission and extracted the same in paragraph No.22 that father was not having any bad vices and also he was running the family business and he was in need of money. Apart from that, admission is given that both the sale deeds binds all the family members and the same is also extracted in paragraph No.23 of the judgment. Having taken note of these admissions on the part of P.W.1, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law, since there is no perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, no ground is made out to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49423 RSA No. 312 of 2025 ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35