- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2030 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. J.R. KRUPANIDHI S/O LATE J.B. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT JAYARAMAJAPURA, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMESH K R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. J.R. BRAMARAMBIKA D/O. J.B. RAMAPPA AND W/O. L. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.02, VARDHAKA THINDLU MAIN ROAD NEAR BYRAWESHWARA RICE TRADERS, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 097 2. SMT J.R. SUJATHA W/O H N SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS , R/O DANDINASHIVARA AT AND POST Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227 3. SRI. J.R. RAVISHANKER D/O LATE J.B. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT JAYARAMARAJAPURA, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.05.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.11/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by defendant No.3 assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2022 rendered by the Learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli in O.S.No.11/2018 wherein the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 are entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each over the suit schedule properties. The said judgment is under challenge. 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The family tree of the family is as under: NARASEGOWDA (LATE) GRAND FATHER RAMAPPA (LATE) FATHER SHARADAMMA (80Y) - MOTHER - D.1 J.R.SUJATHA J.R.BRAMARAMBA J.R.KRUPANIDHI J.R.RAVISHANKAR (62Y- D.2) (59Y- plaintiff) (56Y - D.3) (54Y- D.4) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 4. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff, who is the daughter of late Sri J.B. Ramappa and defendant No.1 and the sister of defendants No.2 and 3, instituted a suit in O.S. No.11/2018 seeking partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule properties. 5. The gist of the plaint averments is that the plaintiff and the defendants constitute a Mitakshara Joint Hindu Family and that the suit schedule properties are ancestral/joint family properties. It is specifically pleaded that the said properties fell to the share of their father, late Sri J.B. Ramappa, in an earlier family partition and thereafter continued to retain the character of joint family properties in the hands of the branch. The plaintiff asserts that there has been no partition by metes and bounds and that she continues to be in joint possession and enjoyment along with the defendants. It is further alleged that, after the demise of their father, defendants No.1, 3 and 4 have been managing the properties without rendering accounts - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 and, despite repeated demands, have failed to allot her legitimate share, thereby necessitating the present suit. 6. On service of summons, defendant No.4 entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the relationship inter se the parties. Defendant No.3, however, contested the suit by setting up a specific plea of prior partition. It is his categorical defence that there was a severance in status and partition during the lifetime of the propositus, late Sri J.B. Ramappa, and therefore the properties ceased to be joint family properties. On that premise, it is contended that the suit for partition is not maintainable. 7. In light of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed necessary issues and afforded opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and relied upon thirty-three documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.33. Defendant No.3 examined himself as DW.1 and produced two documents, namely, a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 genealogical tree and a Settlement Deed, marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2 respectively. 8. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered Issue No.2 against defendant No.3, holding that he has failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged prior partition. The Court observed that, in the absence of cogent rebuttal evidence substantiating severance during the lifetime of late Sri J.B. Ramappa, the plea of prior partition cannot be accepted. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting the plaintiff and defendant No.4 one-fourth share each in the suit schedule properties. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The entire material on record has been carefully perused. 10. In the backdrop of the pleadings and evidence, the following points arise for consideration: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 i) Whether defendant No.3 has substantiated his plea that a partition had already taken place during the lifetime of late Sri J.B. Ramappa? ii) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court that defendant No.3 has failed to establish severance/partition suffers from perversity, misappreciation of evidence, or calls for interference in appeal? Finding on Points No.i and ii : 11. The plaintiff, who is one of the sisters of defendants No.2 to 4, instituted the suit asserting that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and that she, being a coparcener/member of the family, is entitled to her legitimate share therein. Defendant No.3, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed written statement setting up a specific plea of prior partition. The very plea of prior partition necessarily proceeds on the footing that the properties were joint - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 family properties and that there existed a joint family status at some point of time. Once such a plea is raised, the burden squarely shifts upon defendant No.3 to establish, by cogent and convincing evidence, that there was a clear severance in status and an actual partition during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4. 12. It is trite that partition is a question of fact and the party who asserts prior partition must strictly prove the same. In the present case, except taking a bald plea in the written statement, defendant No.3 has not placed any documentary evidence evidencing partition by metes and bounds, nor has he produced any material indicating disruption of joint status during the lifetime of the propositus. No registered partition deed, memorandum of partition, revenue entries, mutation records, or contemporaneous documents evidencing division of properties have been forthcoming. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 13. On the contrary, during the course of cross- examination of DW.1 (defendant No.3), the plaintiff has elicited a categorical admission that there has been no partition till this date between the plaintiff and the defendants. This Court deems it apposite to extract the crucial admissions elicited in the cross-examination of DW.1 (defendant No.3), which read as under: ". . . . .
ಾ ಮತು ಪ
ಾಯರು, ಪ
ಾ 1 ರವರ ಮಕಳ. ನಮ ತಂೆ ಬದುಾಗ ೇ
ಾ ಮತು ಪ
ಾಯರು "#ಾಗ ಆದ ಬ%ೆ& ಾಖ ೆ (ಾಜರು *ಾ+ಲ-. ಾ
ೆಯ ಅನುಕೂಲ0ಾ1 ಈ "ಷಯವನು4 ಸೃ789ೇ
ೆ ಎಂದ;ೆ ಸುಳ<. ನಮ ತಂೆ =ಾವ>ೇ "#ಾಗ *ಾಡೇ ಮೃತಪ@8ಾ;ೆ ಎಂದ;ೆ ಸA. BಾವC ಸಹ =ಾವ>ೇ "#ಾಗ *ಾ+0ೊಂ+ಲ- ಎಂದ;ೆ ಸA. . . . ." 14. The above admission, read in conjunction with the pleadings, assumes considerable significance. When DW.1 has candidly admitted that there has been no partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, the very foundation of the plea of prior partition stands - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 eroded. Such an admission, being clear and unequivocal, constitutes substantive evidence against the maker and dispenses with the necessity of further proof on that aspect. 15. Therefore, the extracted portion of the cross- examination clearly reinforces the plaintiff’s case that the joint family status continues and that there has been no severance by metes and bounds as contended by defendant No.3. 16. This admission strikes at the very root of the defence of prior partition. An admission made in cross- examination, being substantive evidence, binds the maker and can be safely relied upon. Therefore, on an independent re-appreciation of the pleadings and oral evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal filed by defendant No.3 is liable to be dismissed. 17. Firstly, defendant No.3 has utterly failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to prove the factum of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 prior partition. The plea remains a mere assertion without any legal proof. Secondly, the unequivocal admission made by defendant No.3 in his cross-examination that there is no partition between the parties demolishes his own defence and fortifies the case of the plaintiff that the properties continue to remain joint. 18. In light of the said crucial admission and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence establishing severance in status, the plaintiff’s claim for partition stands duly substantiated. The finding recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.2, holding that defendant No.3 has failed to prove prior partition, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any illegality, misreading of evidence, or perversity warranting interference in appeal. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7129 RFA No. 2030 of 2023 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following : ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19