- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SAKAMMA W/O LATE B RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.1690, 100FT ROAD MANDYA CITY-570 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. RAJANNA S/O SINGARAIAH AGE MAJOR R/O HOUSING BOARD, COLONY M.I.G. NO.10 IISTAGE, MANDYA CITY-570 401 2. RAJU S/O CHANNAPPA MAJOR R/O 6TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGARA MANDYA CITY-571 410 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 28.08.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.06/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.151/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN.] MANDYA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This is plaintiff's second appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule properties. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that, she is the legally wedded wife of one Ramaiah and their marriage took place in the year 24.04.1980. Thereafter, she along with Ramaiah were residing in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and Ramaiah had no issues. On, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 15.01.1998, Ramaiah died intestate leaving the plaintiff as his only legal heir. The plaintiff succeeded to all the properties belonging to late Ramaiah. However, defendant No.1 started to obstruct the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties claiming to be an adopted son of late Ramaiah, though late Ramaiah had not transferred any portion of the suit schedule properties to defendant No.1. Later on, the plaintiff discovered that defendant No.1 has created documents in his name in respect of suit schedule properties. However, the said aspects were denied by defendant No.1 in his written statement and he do not admit the status of the plaintiff as the legally wedded wife of late Ramaiah and also denied that the plaintiff was residing in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. 4. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that Ramaiah, by virtue of unregistered Settlement Deed, became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and later in the year 1981, he adopted defendant No.1, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 who is none other than the son of his brother, by performing ceremonies of adoption and also by way of unregistered Adoption Deed. 4. 5. To prove the adoption of defendant No.1 by Ramaiah, defendant no.1 examined 4 witnesses as DWs.1 to 4 and all those witnesses had unequivocally stated that they were present at the time of adoption ceremony and also at the time of execution of unregistered Adoption Deed. Though the said Deed was produced before the Court, since the Court does not accept the same due to non registration and the same was not marked in evidence, additionally, Exs.D1 to D5 - the marks sheet were produced to establish that defendant no.1 is the adopted son of Ramaiah. 5. The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and after considering the evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that PW1 - the plaintiff has herself categorically admitted in her cross-examination that her elder sister Jayamma was married to Ramaiah and she died four years prior to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 death of Ramaiah and at the time of plaintiff's marriage with Ramaiah, her elder sister Jayamma was alive and also attended their marriage and as such, the alleged marital status claimed by the plaintiff does not hold good, since the same was void marriage as per Hindu Law. Nevertheless, there is no iota of evidence to indicate the long cohabitation of the plaintiff as a legally wedded wife of Ramaiah. On the other hand, defendant No.1 established that he had been recognized as the son of Ramaiah since his childhood. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the documents produced by defendant no.1 clearly established that he was in possession of the suit schedule properties as the absolute owner. On the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of Ramaiah, since she admitted in her cross examination that her elder - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 sister Jayamma was the legally wedded wife of Ramaiah and said Jayamma was alive and present in the alleged wedding ceremony of the plaintiff and Ramaiah. In such circumstance, the plaintiff has totally failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of Ramaiah and inherited the suit schedule properties. 7. Further, the First Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that Adoption Deed was also proved by defendant No.1 by adducing the evidence of D.Ws.2 and D.W.4 and also by producing the marks sheet - Exs.D1 to D5. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 8. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence, in my view, both the Courts have correctly come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff has failed to establish her right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties by placing acceptable cogent evidence and documents. I am unable to accept the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the marriage invitation card Ex.P1 and the subsequent documents placed before both the Courts i.e., voter list of the year 1992 and 1995, itself establish the legality of the alleged marriage of the plaintiff late Ramaiah, in view of categorical admission of PW1 in her cross-examination that the first wife of Ramaiah i.e., Jayamma, who is none other than the elder sister of the plaintiff was alive at the time of plaintiff's marriage with Ramaiah. 9. Further, the First Appellate Court and Trial Court have rightly held that the adoption of defendant No.1 by Ramaiah is proved through the materials on record and the evidence of DWs.1 to 5. As such, in my view, there is absolutely no question of law, muchless substantial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43912 RSA No. 573 of 2019 question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14