- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2010 (PAR) BETWEEN: A.1.(a) DODDAVENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. YELAMMA, W/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, A.1.(b) SRI.ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, A.1.(c) SRI.D.YELAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, A.1.(d) SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, A.1.(e) SRI.D.MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, A.1.(f) SMT.GANGAMMA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 A.1.(g) SRI.D.NAGARAJA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT OBADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.V.KESHAVA RAO MOHITHE., ADVOCATE; V/O DATED 01.08.2025 A1(B TO G) ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF A1(A)) AND: 1. a. CHIKKAVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT.ANJANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, R/O BASAVANA HALLIT, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, b. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAVANKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, c. c(a) YELLAKKA, D/O LATE CHIKKAVENAKATAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR. YELLAPPA, S/O GURUMUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 c(b) NAGARAJA, S/O YELLAKKA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, c(d) GANGAPPA, S/O YELLAKKA & GURUMUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, d. SRI.C HANUMANTAHPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, (B) TO (D) ARE RESIDENTS OF OBADENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK. 2. 2(a) GANGAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT.YALLAMMA, W/O LATE GANGAPPA, RESIDENT OF OBADENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 3. PATALAKKA @ VENKATAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, SRI.VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE PATALAKKA AND KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KAMAREDDY HALLI, POSHETTAHALLI POST, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G B MANJUNATHA ., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & B), R1(C)(A TO C) AND R1 (D); SRI.S.A.KHADRI., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A); R3(A) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2009 PASSED IN RA.NO.96/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, DODDABALLAPUR. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.12.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.311/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiffs i.e., respondents No.1 (a to d) filed a suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.311 /1996 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) and JMFC, Doddaballapur. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.1 and 3 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 preferred an RA.No.96/2006 before Fast Track Court Doddaballapur. The said appeal was allowed in part vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit awarding 1/6th share to each sharers. The same is challenged in the present appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as legal representatives of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants, who are children and grandchildren of late Doddahanumanthappa. The undisputed genealogy of the family is produced at Ex.D.2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 4. The defendants in their written statement, denied the averments stated in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff and defendants constitute joint family? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are their joint family properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff prove that he is entitle for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for suit reliefs? 6. What order or decree?" 6. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties to the proceedings. The plaintiffs examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 10 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-10. The defendants examined three witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and marked Exs.D-1 to D-35. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 7. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and decreed the suit by awarding 1/3rd share to the plaintiff-Chikkavenkatappa. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Trial Court, defendant Nos.1 and 3 preferred an appeal before the Fast Tract Court, Doddaballapur, in RA No.96/2006. 9. The First Appellate Court after hearing both the parties, framed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and was entitled share in the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the judgement and decree of the Trial Court calls for interference? 4. What order?" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 10. The First Appellate Court on appreciating the materials available on record, answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and confirmed the Trial Court judgment and modified the relief. 11. In the impugned judgment passed in RA No.96/2006, the First Appellate Court found that all the three daughters of late Doddahanumanthappa were not parties before the Trial Court and that only one daughter was made as a party in the First Appellate Court. In the absence of parties, awarded equal shares to both the sons and daughters of the Doddahanumanthappa. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that property bearing Survey No.23/1 and 23/2 were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. They were not joint family properties. Similarly, Survey No.16, measuring 2 acres 24 guntas was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Trial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 Court as well as First Appellate Court have not considered the said fact and considered them as a joint family properties. It is further contended that Survey No.35/1 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas of Obadenahalli, is a joint family property. In the cross-examination of PW.1, this fact was admitted, but the Courts below did not consider the same and allowed the shares in the said property in favour of legal representatives of Doddahanumanthappa. The said findings are challenged in the present appeal. 13. The Trial Court while discussing the issue No.1, considered the tenanted land to which occupancy rights were granted in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. In paragraph No.13 of the Trial Court judgment, it also considered property bearing Survey No.35/1 and two other house properties. The Trial Court in its judgment has observed that there was no pleadings regarding not including some of the properties referred to in the cross- examination as a joint family properties and without pleadings and issues, it cannot proceed with the matter - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 and hold that it was a joint family property or self acquired property of the plaintiff. 14. The First Appellate Court also reconsidered the matter and rejected the contentions of the appellant. On the basis of the absence of pleadings and materials available on record, both the Courts below, appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence, held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and in the absence of the pleadings, the same property alleged to be belonging to the joint family, cannot be considered. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on the pleadings and evidence available on record. It is a settled principle of law that a person who has not pleaded in respect of the certain facts in the written statement cannot cross-examine the witness on that point. In the present case, no issue was framed in that regard. It is also settled principle of law that without pleadings, any amount of evidence is led by the parties are not of any use. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46012 RSA No. 701 of 2010 15. In these circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Both the Courts below, on the basis of sufficient material, have rightly held that all the properties mentioned in the plaint are joint family properties. In view of the said reasons, there are no substantial questions of law in this case to admit the appeal. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the Courts below. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10