- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2129 OF 2010 (RES) BETWEEN: B.RAJANNA, S/O. LATE BETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-15, GANESH BLOCK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560053. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.RAMAMOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, D/O. LATE BETAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.199, AGARA VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI C.M.C., BENGALURU-560 034. 2. SMT. JAYALAXMI, D/O. LATE BETAPPA, W/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. KALLASWAMANA HALLI, NEAR ASIAN BEARING FACTORY, BAGALUR POST, TAMILNADU STATE. 3. SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE BETAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 R/AT NO.199, AGARA VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI C.M.C., BENGALURU- 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESHWARA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.07.2026, THIS DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: CAV JUDGMENT Sri.M.Ramamohan, counsel for the appellant and Sri.Venkateshwara Babu, counsel on behalf of Sri.A.Shivarama, for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. The present appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2010 passed by the Court of XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.903/2003. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendants are joint family members and are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law. The father, having disposed of the ancestral properties situated at Telagarahalli in Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, purchased Property No.199 at Agara Village, within the Bommanahalli Municipal limits, Bengaluru, in the year 1962. The said property, being acquired from the joint family funds, and is asserted to be the ancestral joint family property. After the purchase of the suit-scheduled property, the plaintiff and the first defendant constructed a residential house thereon to reside with their family members. Subsequently, as the plaintiff was employed in a factory, he was compelled to reside at Sheshadripuram along with his wife and children. It is stated that, upon his voluntary retirement from service, the plaintiff was left without any source of income to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 maintain his family and was unable to secure rented accommodation. In consequence, he approached his father, the first defendant, seeking permission to construct a residential portion in the vacant space available within the suit schedule property. The first defendant, who was residing with the second defendant, did not respond to the plaintiff’s request. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached defendant No.2 and disclosed his plan to raise a residential building in the said vacant portion of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that the plaintiff’s brother, in an arrogant manner, asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to put up any construction on the suit schedule property, contending that the entire property belonged to him by virtue of a gift deed executed in his favor by their father. It is averred in the plaint that the second defendant had played a fraud in obtaining the said gift deed from the first defendant. The plaintiff immediately approached his father and sought partition, contending that the first defendant had no right to execute the gift deed in favor of the second defendant, since the suit schedule property constituted joint family property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 Alleging fraud on the part of the second defendant, the plaintiff has approached the Court of law seeking shelter and appropriate relief. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered an appearance and filed their written statement, wherein they denied the plaint averments. They specifically contended that the suit-scheduled property was not joint family property but the self-acquired property of their father, Bettappa. It was further asserted that, in exercise of such ownership, the first defendant had executed a gift deed in favor of the second defendant. Urging other contentions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, the parties adduced evidence, and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court, by its Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2010, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 Counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are opposed to the facts, the law, and the probabilities of the case. It is next submitted that the first defendant purchased the suit schedule property in 1962, utilizing joint family funds. To facilitate the purchase, he had availed an advance of Rs.150/- in 1962 from one Muniyappa, the purchaser of the ancestral property situated at Telagarahalli Village. However, the Trial Court erred in failing to appreciate this material fact. It is further contended that the Trial Court did not properly consider the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who categorically deposed that the father had purchased the suit schedule property by selling joint family property. Counsel vehemently argued that the Trial Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the suit-schedule property to be joint family property. Lastly, it is submitted that the Trial Court's finding with respect to the gift deed is also unsustainable. Urging additional grounds, counsel submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 Counsel for the respondents submits that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. It is contended that the suit-scheduled property was the self-acquired property of the father, Bettappa, who had every right to deal with the same and, in exercise of such right, executed the gift deed in favor of the second defendant. Counsel vehemently argued that the Trial Court, after extensively referring to the material on record, rightly dismissed the suit. It is therefore submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions: ANGADI CHANDRANNA V/S. SHANKAR AND OTHERS REPORTED IN [2025] 4 SCR 1417. SMT.USHA N.SWAMY V/S. SRI.M.VENKATASWAMY AND OTHERS IN RFA NO.1568/2018 DISPOSED OF ON 16.06.2026. 6. Heard the arguments, perused the papers and also records with care. 7. The point that requires consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 8. The facts having been sufficiently stated, they do not warrant repetition. The plaintiff contends that the suit-scheduled property was acquired by the first defendant in 1962 utilizing joint family funds, and therefore it must be treated as ancestral property. Being governed by Mitakshara law, the plaintiff asserts that he has a share in the said property. Consequently, the first defendant could not have validly gifted the property in favor of the second defendant. On this premise, the plaintiff approached the Court of law seeking relief. The plaintiff contended that there existed a joint family and that the suit-scheduled property was joint family property. To substantiate this contention, reliance was placed upon oral evidence, coupled with the allegation that the father had utilized joint family funds by selling property under Ex.P9. Before this Court, the plaintiff adhered to the same contention. However, such contention cannot be sustained. The record discloses that there was no joint family, much less a joint family fund, available for the purchase of the suit-scheduled property. The oral evidence indicates that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 plaintiff was residing separately. An attempt was nevertheless made to contend that, owing to the distance between his workplace and the family residence, he had to reside at Sheshadripuram, which was nearer to his place of employment. The evidence further establishes that, at the time of purchase of the suit-scheduled property in 1962, no joint family property was in existence. The plaintiff himself admitted that his father had no landed property at Telagarahalli. Apart from stating that the house property belonged to his grandfather, that it was joint family property, and that his father sold the said house property to purchase the suit-scheduled property, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his claim. Consequently, he has not established that the suit-scheduled property was joint family property in which he had a right. The plaintiff cannot place reliance upon the oral testimony of PWs.2 and 3, who were merely residents of the village. Since they are not members of the family, they would have no knowledge of the nature of the property or of its disposal by the father in 1962. A considerable argument was advanced regarding the sale deed at Ex.P9 and the alleged advance amount received by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 the father for purchasing the suit-scheduled property. Except for the bare assertion that the advance amount was utilized for such purchase, there is no material on record to demonstrate that there was an agreement for the sale of the house, or that the father had indeed received such amount and applied it towards the purchase. Under Mitakshara law, the general presumption is that property standing in the name of an individual is his separate property, unless it is shown that it was acquired from joint family funds or by utilizing income from ancestral property. Therefore, if the plaintiff claims that the suit-scheduled property is joint family property, he must establish this fact by producing cogent evidence. Mere assertions or oral testimony without documentary proof (such as records showing the existence of a joint family nucleus or income from ancestral property) are insufficient. The Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that the person who alleges that a property is joint family property must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus and its utilization in acquiring the property. Without such proof, the property is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 presumed to be self-acquired. Thus, the settled position of law is that, whenever a suit is filed asserting that the suit-scheduled property is joint family property and that the plaintiff has a share therein, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the existence of a joint family and a nucleus sufficient for the acquisition of the property. In the present case, both these essential elements are absent. The contention that the second defendant committed fraud upon the first defendant in obtaining a gift deed is equally untenable. It is pivotal to note that the first defendant himself executed the gift deed in the year 2001 and thereafter died in 2004. If indeed there had been any fraud, nothing prevented the first defendant from seeking cancellation of the gift deed during his lifetime. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act also contemplates such relief. Accordingly, the plea of fraud raised by the plaintiff cannot be sustained. The point is answered accordingly. 9. The appeal is devoid of merit, and hence it is to be dismissed. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33915 RFA No. 2129 of 2010 Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1