- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: K.M SANTHOSH S/O LATE K.M. MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/A KOPPALU KALIHUNDI VILLAGE TALAKADU HOBLI T.NARASIPURA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANNANANJAMMA W/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A KOPPALU KALIGUNDI VILLAGE TALAKADU HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124. (DIED – THE RESPONDENT No.2 TO 5 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE’S ALREADY ON RECORD) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 2. SUNITHA W/O LATE B. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. YASHWANTH S/O LATE B. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 4. KUMARI. BRUNDA D/O LATE B. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 ARE R/A SY.NO.947/151/E, OLD KURUBAGERI, KOLLEGALA TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 440. 5. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O N.P.RAMU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.641, COLLEGE ROAD, T. NARASIPURA TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124. 6. BASAMMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 W/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/A KOPPALU KALIHUNDI VILLAGE TALAKADU HOBLI T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124. (DIED ALL RESPONDENTS ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) 7. RAJAMMA W/O LATE K.M.MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A KOPPALU KALIHUNDI VILLAGE TALAKADU HOBLI T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124. 8. GOWRAMMA K.M @ MANASA W/O BRAMHESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A KOPPALU, KALIHUNDI VILLAGE TALAKADU HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124. 9. MAHALAKSHMI W/O RAVI KUMAR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A KOPPALU KALIHUNDI VILLAGE TALAKADU HOBLI T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 (R4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024, R2 TO R5 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R1 AND R2 TO R5, R7 TO R9 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R6) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 17.12.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.368/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 22.2.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.76/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., T.NARASIPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in R.A.No.368/2011 by the VI Additional District Judge, Mysore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.76/2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) T.Narasipura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.4, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession, contending that the suit schedule properties - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are the members of the Hindu undivided family. It is contended that the plaintiff and the defendants are jointly cultivating the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect the partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that there was a prior partition in 1978 and item Nos.1 to 7 were the ancestral properties and rest of the properties were acquired by the defendants. The said properties are not the joint family properties. Hence, there was a prior partition and the suit for partition is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 3.2. Defendant No.1 also filed the additional written statement. 3.3. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 have filed an independent written statement admitting all the averments made in the plaint and contended that all the family properties continued in the joint family. Defendant No.9 is entitled to a share out of the share of her husband Huchegowda. Defendant No.8 is also entitled to a share out of the property, which will be allotted to the Basavegowda. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 3.4. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 3.5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked 31 documents as Exs.P1 to P31. Defendant No.8 was examined as DW1, defendant No.9 was examined as DW2, defendant No.1 was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 examined as DW3 and defendant No.1 got marked 28 documents as Exs.D1 to D28. 3.6. The trial Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 22.02.2011 and held that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8 are entitled for partition of their 1/3rd share out of which the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share allotted to the wing of Basavegowda i.e., 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties with metes and bounds. Further, it is held that defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties with metes and bounds being the legal representatives of the deceased K.H.Madegowda. Defendant No.9 is entitled for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties with metes and bounds. 3.7. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.76/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.368/2011. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 17.12.2011. 3.9. Defendant No.4, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No.4. 5. Learned counsel for defendant No.4 submits that there was a prior partition in 1978 amongst the members of the family and the said partition was acted upon by the parties and the mutation was effected based on the partition effected in 1978. The said aspect has not been properly considered by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant No.4. 7. It is an undisputed fact that one Huchegowda was the original propositor and he had a wife by name Basamma i.e., defendant No.9. Huchegowda and Basamma had 2 sons i.e. Basavegowda and Madegowda. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Basavegowda. Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 are the children of Basavegowda and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Madegowda. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant No.1 has filed a written statement contending that there was a partition in 1978 and the produced Ex.D1. Defendant No.1 except producing Ex.D1 the defendant neither produced any records nor examined any witnesses to establish that there was a partition in 1978. Both the Courts below considering Ex.D1 has held that defendant No.1 has failed to establish that what are the properties - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 which were allotted to Basavegowda in the alleged partition effected in 1978. The defendants admitted that item Nos.1 to 7 of the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The said admission of the defendants is sufficient to hold that item Nos.1 to 7 are the ancestral properties. The remaining properties were acquired in the name of different members of the family out of joint family nucleus. The plaintiff has established that there was a nucleus for purchasing the properties in the name of different members of the family. Though the defendants have contended that the other suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties, defendant No.1 has failed to establish the source of income for purchasing the said suit schedule properties. The Courts below recorded a finding that defendant No.1 has failed to prove that there was a prior partition in 1978 and also held that defendant No.1 has failed to establish that there was a separate source of income for purchasing the suit schedule properties. Both the Courts below were concurrently recorded a finding of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26137 RSA No. 565 of 2014 facts that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are the members of the Hindu undivided family and no partition is effected between the parties to the suit. Both the Courts below were justified in passing impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB