- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: R. JAYARAMAIAH, S/O L RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A NO.79, RUDRESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 060. …APPELLANT [BY SRI C R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. HANUMANTHAIAH R., S/O L RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 060. 2. SIDDAGANGAPPA R., S/O LATE L RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 060. 3. LALITHAMMA, W/O HANUMANTHAIAH, D/O LATE LAKKAHANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 R/A ADEPET, TYAMAGONDLU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE KIDALAPPA, D/O LATE LAKKAHANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A KOTE BEEDHI, TYAMAGONDLU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 5. BHAGYAMMA, W/O CHANDRAPPA, D/O LATE LAKKAHANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A BASAVANAGUDI TEMPLE ROAD, GULUR, GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH @ RAJANNA, R/A BASAVANNA TEMPLE GULUR, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 118. 7. SMT. LAKSHMI R., W/O T.K. RAVIKUMAR, D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A TYAMAGONDALU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132. 8. SMT. LAVANYA, W/O RAMESH J., D/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A GUNI AGRAHARA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 LAKSHMIPURA CROSS, M.S. PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 097. 9. SMT. YASHODA R., W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY D., D/O HANUMANTHAIAH @ RAJANNA, R/A NO.15, DAYANANDA NAGAR, JAYANAGARA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH); SRI MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH); SRI VINAY S.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9 (PH)] THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2022 PASSED IN RA No.330/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2009 PASSED IN OS No.440/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 23.09.2022 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in R.A.no.330/2012 and judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed by II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in O.S.no.440/2002, this second appeal is filed. 2. Sri C.R. Subramanya, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in O.S.no.440/2002 filed for partition and separate possession of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. In plaint, it was stated that plaintiff and defendants were descendants of one Lakkappa, who had two sons, namely L. Rangaiah and L. Channarayappa. After death of Lakkappa, Rangaiah and Channarayappa partitioned properties by metes and bounds. It was stated, plaintiff was second son, defendant no.1 was eldest son and defendant no.2 was third son of late Rangaiah, who died on 28.08.2001. It was stated that Rangaiah also had two daughters namely Smt.Lakkahanumakka and Smt.Venkatamma, who were married prior to Karnataka Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, and hence they were not made parties to suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 3. It was stated, 'A' schedule properties had fallen to share of Rangaiah in partition and by joint efforts of plaintiff, defendants and their father Rangaiah with income derived from 'A' schedule properties and sale of land bearing Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2 measuring 2 Acres 3 guntas and 2 Acres 2 guntas respectively at Ramohalli, 'B' schedule properties i.e., wet lands bearing Sy.no.111/3, Sy.no.112/2 and Sy.no.112/1 totally measuring 3 Acres 10 guntas of Ramohalli and 4 Acres 20 guntas of dry land in Sy.no.4 of Kolur village were purchased. Thus schedule 'A' and 'B' properties were joint family properties and plaintiff was entitled for 1/3rd share therein and since plaintiff's demand for partition was not met, suit was filed. 4. On appearance, defendants filed written statement admitting relationship, but denying plaintiff's claim. They admitted 'A' schedule properties belonged to their father Rangaiah. It was stated, plaintiff had left village in year 1975 and was residing in Bangalore and carrying on business. It was also specifically stated that land bearing Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2 of Ramohalli had fallen to his share in partition were sold by their father for discharge of loan liability and defendants had no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 role in sale. Further, 'B' schedule properties were purchased by defendants under three registered sale deeds dated 09.03.1992. It was further stated, defendant no.1 began residing at Ramohalli Pete Beedhi from year 1976 and was dealing in castor oil and coconut oil apart from assisting father in agriculture. From said income, defendant no.1 purchased 3 Acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.no.4 under registered sale deed dated 11.09.1985. Thereafter, another extent of 1 Acre 10 guntas in said survey number was purchased jointly by defendants no.1 and 2 under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1990 and there was no contribution either from their father or from plaintiff for said purchase. As such, 'B' schedule properties were self-acquired properties and not amenable for partition. 5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: ISSUES 1) Whether plaintiff proves that suit properties are joint family properties and in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff? 2) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit properties? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 3) Whether defendants prove that 'B' schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the defendants? 4) What is the income of the suit properties and who is liable to account for the same? 5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties? 6) What order of decree? 6. To substantiate their respective stand, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P22. In rebuttal, defendant no.2 deposed as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D26. 7. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no. 1, 2 and 5 in affirmative; issue no.3 in negative and deferring issue no.4 for separate enquiry and answering issue no.6 by decreeing suit granting 1/5th share to plaintiff in all suit properties taking note of fact that plaintiff/defendants' father Rangaiah had five children. 8. Aggrieved, defendants filed R.A.no.330/2012 on various grounds, based on which first appellate Court framed following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 POINTS 1) Whether the learned trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff has proved that the suit properties are his joint family properties? 2) Whether the learned trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff filed in O.S.no.440/2002 dated 06.10.2009? 3) What order? 9. After answering points no.1 and 2 partly in affirmative, it answered point no.3 by allowing appeal in part confining relief of partition only insofar as items no.1 and 3 to 6 of plaint 'A' schedule properties, excluding items no.2 and 7 to 10 of 'A' schedule properties and items no.1 and 2 of 'B' schedule properties. Aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 10. At outset, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff fairly submitted that plaintiff was not challenging judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court insofar as exclusion of items no.2 and 7 to 10 of 'A' schedule properties and subject matter of second appeal was confined to schedule 'B' properties only. Learned counsel submitted, judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court was contrary to facts and evidence on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 record. It was contented that plaintiff had specifically pleaded and deposed that items in schedule 'A' and 'B' properties were joint family properties and as defendants were claiming certain properties to be self-acquired, burden would be on them to establish same. In absence of specific evidence with regard to consideration amount for purchase of 'B' schedule properties, first appellate Court was not justified in excluding 'B' schedule from partition. On above grounds submitted following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration and sought for answering same in favour of appellant and to allow appeal restoring trial Court judgment and decree. (i) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition in respect of items 7 to 10 in A schedule and dismissing the suit in respect of plaint B schedule properties? (ii) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in not property appreciating the evidence on record being the final court of fact finding authority? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 (iii) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in throwing the burden of proving the suit schedule items 7 to 10 in respect of Plaint A Schedule and Plaint B Schedule when it was pleaded that these properties are acquired by the joint family Nucleus? (iv) Whether the Lower appellate Court was justified without discussing the citations sighted by the plaintiff? 11. On other hand Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for respondent/defendant no.1, Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel for respondent/defendant no.2 and Sri Vinay S.N., learned counsel for respondents no.3 to 9 opposed appeal. It was submitted, first appellate Court on detailed examination of material on record and on re-appreciation had arrived at well-reasoned conclusion and finding about nature of 'B' schedule properties as self-acquired properties was finding of fact and which could not be interfered with second appeal and sought for dismissal of appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused impugned judgment and decree of both Courts and records. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 13. This appeal is by plaintiff against divergent findings in suit for partition only insofar as finding of first appellate Court excluding Schedule 'B' properties from decree of partition granted by trial Court. Perusal of plaint would reveal, it was specific case of plaintiff that schedule 'B' properties were purchased from joint family nucleus funds i.e., sale of lands bearing Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2 of Ramohalli. Trial Court framed specific issue regarding nature of 'B' schedule properties i.e., issue no.3. While giving its finding on issues no.1 and 3, trial Court examined defence of defendants and deposition of DW.1 and referring to admission by DW.1 that he had not produced any documents to show he had started business by obtaining loan, not produced license copy, sales tax returns etc. and concluded that defendants had failed to establish separate income and drawing presumption and negatived claim of defendants about 'B' schedule properties being self-acquired properties. 14. First appellate Court on other hand referred to pleadings in para-5 of plaint, wherein plaintiff's claimed that lands bearing Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2 were sold for purchase of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 'B' schedule properties. It rightly observed that in suit for partition, initial burden would be on plaintiff to establish all suit properties as joint family properties. Admittedly, 'B' schedule properties were purchased and standing in name of defendants. Referring to deposition and documentary evidence of plaintiff, first appellate Court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish items no.2 and 7 to 10 of 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties as joint family properties. 15. Though learned counsel for appellant would be justified in contending that burden to establish any properties as self-acquired in a suit for partition would be on person claiming to be so, said burden would arise only after plaintiff establishes suit properties as joint family properties. Indeed in plaint para-5 as well as in his affidavit examination-in-chief, plaintiff has specifically stated that lands bearing Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2 were sold and consideration utilized for purchase of 'B' schedule properties. In cross-examination of PW.1 on 12.07.2007 he admitted that he did not remember when lands bearing Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2 were sold by his father. He also admitted that he was unaware of date on which 'B' schedule properties were purchased. Even in his further cross- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 examination on 13.08.2007, PW.1 reiterates that he is unaware about date of purchase of 'B' schedule properties. It is relevant to state that PW.1 was cross-examined on 12.07.2007, 13.08.2007 and 13.02.2008 i.e., on various dates and yet failed to state date of sale of Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2. On contrary there is admission that he does not know date of sale. 16. Even perusal of Exhibits-P1 to P22 reveal that there are no documents or records produced with regard to Sy.nos.57/3 and 57/2. Unless, elementary burden of establishing proximity of sale of lands and purchase of 'B' schedule properties, it cannot be stated that plaintiff had discharged burden on him to establish nature of 'B' schedule properties as joint family properties and was purchased out of joint family nucleus. 17. It is also settled law that plaintiff has to rely upon his own strength and not on weakness of defendants. In any case, defendants have produced sale deed, wherein 'B' schedule properties were purchased and same were marked as Exhibits-D7 to D9 which showed date of purchase on 09.03.1992. Therefore, deposition of DW.1 that he had began residing separately at Ramohalli Pete Beedhi from 1976 and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10863 RSA No. 83 of 2023 carrying on business in castor oil and coconut oil has not been discredited. 18. Under such circumstances, first appellate Court would be justified in arriving at its own conclusion based on re- appreciation of entire material on record. It is seen that first appellate Court has assigned reasons for its conclusion. It is not case of appellant/plaintiff that any part of evidence was not considered or examined. In view of above, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, I.A.no.1/2023 stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30