- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1514 OF 2016 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. GANGADHARA POOJARY S/O VANAJA POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 2. KALPANA POOJARTHY D/O VANAJA POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. SHRIKANTH POOJARY S/O VANAJA POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 4. RAMANI POOJARTHY D/O VANAJA POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NEAR BRAHMASTHANA, HEJAMADI VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANJEEVA POOJARY S/O DOOMA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT PADMA NILAYA, PADUKERE, HEJAMADY, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 2. MONAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 3. JAYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 4. INDIRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 5. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 6. CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 7. PANDU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 8. VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 ARE CHILDERN OF LATE JANAMMA POOJARY, R/AT HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 9. KARGI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 10. RAMA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 11. SHANKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 12. KALU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 13. MEENAKSHI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 14. SHEKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.9 IS WIFE AND RESPONDENTS 10 TO 14 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE VASU POOJRY, R/AT HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 15. GIRIJA POOJARTHY D/O LATE AKKU POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 16. SUNDARI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 17. SHELA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 18. HARISHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 19. SULOCHANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 20. HARINI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 21. PRAMEELA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 22. SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 23. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 16 TO 23 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE BHOJA POOJARY, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 R/AT HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 24. MADHAVA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 25. LAXMI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 24 AND 25 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE AKKU POOJARTHI, R/AT HEJAMADI VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 26. RADHU POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 27. BHASKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 28. NALINI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 26 TO 27 ARE R/AT HEJAMADI VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 29. SEETHA AGE: MAJOR. 30. DIVYA AGE: MAJOR. 31. DEEPTHI AGE: MAJOR. 32. DEEKSHA AGE: MAJOR. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 RESPONDENT NO.29 IS THE WIFE AND RESPONDENTS 30 TO 32 ARE CHILDRENOF LATE VAMANA POOJARY, R/AT HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 33. SUMATHI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. . 34. JAGANNATHA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 35. VENKATESH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 33 TO 35 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE MUDANNA POOJARY, R/AT HEJAMADI VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 36. H. DAMODARA BANGERA S/O GOPALA P. AMIN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NITYANANDA SADANA, HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. 37. THEJAPPAL SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NALINI BHAVAN, HEJAMADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R9, R10, R12, R13, R36 AND R37; V/O DATED 24.01.2024, APPEAL AGAINST R1, R11, R15 AND R26 TO R29 ABATES; R15 TO R24 AND R30 TO R34-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 V/O DATED 31.01.2026, NOTICE TO R2 TO R8, R25 AND R35 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 06.02.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R14 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21ST APRIL, 2016 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.81 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17TH AUGUST, 2012 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.187 OF 2001 ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., UDUPI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21st April, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.81 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17th August, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.187 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Udupi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of plaintiffs came to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the Plaint 'A' Schedule Property is the Chalageni of Dooma Poojary and his sister Akku Poojarthi. The said Dooma Poojari had children namely Sanjeeva Poojari and Vanaja Poojarthi. Dooma Poojari and Akku Poojarthi are no more. Defendants 2 to 7 are the children of the said Akku Poojarthi and plaintiffs are the children of Vanaja Poojarthi. 4. It is the case of plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are in cultivation of the children of Dooma Poojari during the life time of Dooma Poojari and his sister Akku Poojarthi and the children of Akku Poojarthi have colluded with each other to grab the schedule property. The defendant No.3- Vasu Poojari filed application before the competent authority seeking occupancy right and accordingly, the Land Tribunal, Udupi by its order dated 05th July, 1979 registered the defendants 1 and 3 as occupants of the plaint schedule properties. It is also stated that the plaintiffs, being the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 children of Vanaja Poojarthi are members of undivided family to which schedule properties were granted by the Land Tribunal and therefore, made a claim for share in the suit schedule properties and same was refused by the defendants. It is also contended that the defendants have sold the portion of the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 15 and 16 and therefore, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit, seeking relief of declaration and partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. 5. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance. The defendant No.3 has filed detailed written statement admitting the relationship with the plaintiffs however, disputes that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Dooma Poojari and Akku Poojarthi. The remaining defendants adopt the written statement filed by the defendant No.3. 6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on recorded, formulated issues for its consideration. 7. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined 2 witness as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 10 documents as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 Exhibits P1 to P10. On the other hand, defendants examined 1 witness as DW1 and got marked 19 documents as Exhibits D1 to D19. 8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17th August, 2012, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred Regular Appeal No.81 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the material on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri. Vyasa Rao K.S., learned counsel appearing for respondents 9, 10, 12, 13, 36 and 37. 10. Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the suit schedule properties are granted to the joint family consisting of Dooma Poojari and his sister Akku Poojarthi and therefore, the plaintiffs have share in the suit schedule properties. It is also argued that, both the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 Courts below committed an error in appreciating the oral evidence of the parties and solely based on Form No.7 filed by defendant No.3-Vasu Poojari, arrived at a conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties of children of Akku Poojarthi, which is erroneous finding. Therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 12. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Dooma Poojari and his sister Akku Poojarthi. On the other hand, defendants claiming that the suit schedule properties are the granted land in favour of the children of Akku Poojarthi. 13. On careful consideration of Exhibit D2-Form No.7 filed by the defendant No.3-Vasu Poojari, seeking grant of suit schedule property and Exhibit D1-Partition Deed, the same is evidencing the partition effected between the branch of Dooma Poojari and Akku Poojarthi, wherein one-half portion each was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 granted to the members of the joint family of Dooma Poojari and Akku Poojarthi. It is not in dispute that, Form No.10 (Exhibit D3) stands in the name of the defendant No.3-Vasu Poojari. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, nothing is stated in Form No.7 or in the order of the Land Tribunal (Exhibit D19) about the grant of the suit schedule property is made in favour of the joint family consisting of Dooma Poojary. It is also to be noted that the plaintiffs are the children of Vanaja Poojarthi. If the contention of the plaintiffs is accepted as the suit schedule property is the joint family property, however, no claim has been made by the brother of Vanaja Poojarthi viz. Sanjeeva Poojari, which makes it clear that the finding recorded by both the Courts below is just and proper. Therefore, the entire material on record has been appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record and as such, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit. Therefore, as there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the appeal requires to be dismissed as the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13857 RSA NO.1514 OF 2016 question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, at the stage of Admission itself, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54