- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.898 OF 2010 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. PUTTAMMA W/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. PRAKASH S/O LATE PUTTABOVI, AGED 37 YEARS, 3. RAJA BOVI S/O CHINNODA BOVI, AGED 64 YEARS, 4. GIRI SWAMY S/O CHINNODA BOVI, AGED 62 YEARS, 5. THAMMA BOVI S/O CHINNODA BOVI, AGED 46 YEARS, 6. CHIKKAMMA W/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 7. GOWRAMMA W/O PUTTA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VADDARA PALYA, KATTEBALAGULL DHAKLE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, H.N. PUR TALUK-573102 HASSAN DISTRICT. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE AND SRI M.K. SANDEEP, ADVOCATE) AND: ANNA BOVI, DEAD BY LRs. 1. SIOMANNA W/O ANNA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. KUMAR S/O ANNA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. THAMMA BOVI S/O PAPA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, GIRIYABOVI S/O PAPA BOVI, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR. NAMELY THAYAMMA, 4. THAYAMMA W/O GIRIYA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 5. MATA BOVI S/O CHIKKA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 6. LAXMANA W/O KALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 7. SHIVARAJU S/O KALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 8. DASAPPA S/O CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT VADDARA PALYA, KATTEBALAGULL DHAKLE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, H.N. PUR TALUK-573102 HASSAN DISTRICT. &RESPONDENTS (NOTICES TO R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-6 TO R-8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; APPEAL AGAINST R-3 & R-5 STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED V/O DATED 09/02/2021) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.183/08 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.155/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), HOLENARASIPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 7 challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below in OS No. 155/2003 dated 11.09.2008 and First Appellate Court in R.A 183/2008 dated 08.01.2010, whereby the suit for partition and separate possession came to be partly decreed granting one fourth share to the plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the defendants came to be dismissed confirming the said decree. 2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 17.02.2021 framed the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the suit was not maintainable by virtue of earlier partition? (ii) Whether the principles of partition suit 3 8All properties and all parties9, not followed? 3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the substantial questions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 of law framed by this Court. Though the respondents are served, they have remained unrepresented. Brief Facts 4. The family genealogical tree is culled out as under: ªÀA±À ªÀÈPÀë ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀÄgÀµÀ VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë (¥ËªÀw) 1£Éà ºÉAqÀw ZÀ£ÀߪÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) 2£Éà ºÉAqÀw aPÀ̪ÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) aPĄ̀ÉÆë (¥ËªÀw) ¥Á¥À¨ÉÆë (¥ËªÀw) PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë (¥ËªÀw) a£ÉÆÃqÀ¨ÉÆë (¥ËªÀw) PÀtªÀ£ÀÄß (¥ËªÀw) ºÉAqÀw ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) aPÀ̪ÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) ªÀÄÆmÁ¨ÉÆë PÀ®ètÚ a£À߸Áé«Ä (¥Ë) ¥ÀæPÁ±À dAiÀĪÀÄä ®PÀëät ²ªÀgÁd aPÀ̪ÀÄä ZÀ£ÀߪÀÄä (1£Éà ºÉAqÀw ¥ËªÀw) (2£Éà ºÉAqÀw) VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë CuÁÚ¨ÉÆë vÀªÀÄä¨ÉÆë vÁAiÀĪÀÄä gÁeÁ¨ÉÆë Vj¸Áé«Ä vÀªÀÄä¨ÉÆë aPÀ̪ÀÄä UËgÀªÀÄä - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 5. The plaintiffs instituted suit for partition and separate possession contending that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi-propositus. After his death, the property devolved as the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Kariya Bovi is the son of the second wife of Giriya Bovi, Chikkamma. It is stated by the plaintiffs that Kariya Bovi after the death of Giriya Bovi was managing the family affairs and got the khata changed in his favour behind the back of the plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. 6. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement denying the plaint averments except to the limited extent that they admitted that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi and about the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants specifically contended that the suit properties are not the joint family properties of plaintiffs and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 defendants. It is stated that during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi about 60 to 70 years ago there was a partition of the family properties and in the said partition the children of first wife (Chinnamma) and the children of second wife (Chikkamma) namely Kariya Bovi and Chinnoda Bovi were allotted separate shares. It is stated that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the defendants9 second wife's branch, Kariya Bovi. It is stated that the plaintiffs branch had been allotted properties which they have already alienated earlier. Further it is stated that after the death of Kariya Bovi, his wife Puttamma and thereafter defendant No. 1 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The revenue record stood in the name of Kariya Bovi and later mutated in the name of defendant No. 1 and therefore the plaintiffs have no right, title or share and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. The trial Court framed necessary issues. In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs examined - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 plaintiff No.1 as PW1, marked documents at Exhibits P1 to P14 and defendants on the other hand examined defendant No. 1 as DW1 and two witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and marked documents at Exhibits D1 to D4. 8. The trial Court, on basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the conclusion that, (i) the defendants have failed to prove prior partition. (ii) No documentary evidence was produced and the oral evidence was inconsistent. (iii) That the properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi and hence it was the joint family properties. (iv) The plaintiffs are entitled for one fourth share. 9. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit in part. Aggrieved by which the defendants preferred appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 10. The First Appellate Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and held that defendants failed to establish prior partition as no reliable documentary evidence was produced and that the witnesses DW1 to DW3 admitted in clear terms as to the lack of knowledge. The First Appellate Court held that the revenue records produced by the defendants in Exhibit D series does not establish title or partition and that the plaintiffs successfully established that the properties belonged to the common ancestor and that there was no division of properties and the plaintiffs were entitled for share in the suit schedule property, confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, aggrieved by which the defendants are before this Court. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contend that both the Courts have totally erred in ignoring the prior partition which was 60 to 70 years ago and failed to appreciate that the suit properties fell to the share of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 Kariya Bovi branch and the plaintiffs have already alienated their share. Learned counsel submits that in light of the earlier partition, the suit in the present nature was not maintainable which was totally failed to be appreciated by the Courts below. Learned counsel further contends that the Courts below have relied on insufficient evidence and ignored the mutation entries and revenue records. It is submitted that inclusion of additional properties without proper pleadings renders the decree unsustainable and the judgment and decree is contrary to law and evidence. 12. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. Regarding substantial question of law No. (i): 13. The defendant No. 1 was examined as DW1. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi (propositus). The plaintiffs and defendants are members of the joint family. It is stated that there was a partition - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 about 60 to 70 years during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi and in the said partition, the family of the first wife, plaintiffs' branch, and the second wife branch of Kariya Bovi and Chinnoda Bovi were divided. The suit schedule properties fell to the share of Kariya Bovi, who is the son through the second wife. It is further stated that the properties that fell to the share of first wife's branch plaintiffs were subsequently alienated by them. 14. DW1 in her cross examination has stated as under: <F »AzÉ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è »¸ÉìAiÀiÁzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆëAiÀĪÀjUÉ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÉvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà d«ÄãÀÄ EgÀ°®è. £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è ¥Á®Ä ¥ÀnÖ ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ zÁR¯É DVgÀ°®è. VjAiÀĨÉÆëAiÀĪÀjUÉ E§âgÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. DuÁÚ¨ÉÆë ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ E®è. ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉý §gɹzÉÝãÉ. DzÀgÉ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÀÆ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆë ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀ°®è. VjAiÀĨÉÆë D¹ÛUÀ¼À «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸À«zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 ¸Àj. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ d«Ää£À G¼ÀĪÉÄà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàV ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÀÆ ¥Á®Ä EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆëAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀuÁ£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆëAiÉÄà J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä «±Áé¸À¢AzÀ EzÉÝêÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.= 15. In her cross-examination DW1 made a categorical admission that she does not know about the alleged earlier partition and she admits that Giriya Bovi had no other properties apart from the suit properties. She also denies the knowledge about Giriya Bovi having two wives contradicting her own chief examination. She states that she has not seen the two wives and she is unaware as to how the properties were divided and she does not know the shares allotted. She further admits that the plaintiffs are residing in the same village and after the death of Giriya Bovi, her father Kariya Bovi was managing the entire property. She denies the plaintiffs possession or cultivation and knowledge of actual division of properties. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 16. From the above, it is clear that the plea of prior partition is not supported by DW1, where she expresses her lack of knowledge, contradicts the material aspects about two wives, partition and division, and fails to give specific details of partition. Thus, her evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, and insufficient to prove partition. 17. DW2 and DW3 who were examined as witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs have stated in their cross- examination as under: <ªÁ¢ VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆë D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆmÁÖUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è, ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.120 gÀ°è ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä¤UÉ PÉÆlÖ ¨sÁUÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀæ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛzÀÄÝ, G½zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁgÁåjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¨sÁUÀ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆëUÉ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.120 gÀ°è EzÀÝ 4 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà d«ÄãÀÄ EgÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀj «¨sÁUÀzÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 40 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. «¨sÁUÀzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 4 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä¤UÉ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 4 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀÇtðªÁV VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆëUÉ ¸ÉÃj\zÀÝ - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 d«ÄãÁVvÀÄÛ. ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä £À£Àß ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÉ ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ. gÀAUÁ¨ÉÆë £À£Àß aPÀÌ¥Àà.= x x x <ªÁ¢ VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀ°®è, VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆëAiÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è DzÀ »¸ÉìUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è. VjAiÀiÁ ¨ÉÆëUÉ JµÉÖõÀÄÖ JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ J¯Éèðè EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÁåjUÉ JµÉÖµÀÄÖ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ 1£Éà ªÁ¢, ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä J®ègÀÆ zÁAiÀiÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ. d«ÄãÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉý §gɹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ §gɸÀĪÁUÀ ¥Á®Ä¥ÀnÖ E¢ÝvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Á®Ä¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀĨÉÆëAiÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀgÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁPÀëå £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.= 18. DW2 categorically admitted that he has not participated in the alleged partition said to have been taken place during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi and that he does not know the shares allotted to each member except stating generally about the share of Puttama. He further states that land bearing Sy. No. 120 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas belonged to Giriya Bovi and admits that there are - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 no other properties apart from the said land. He further states that he came to know about the division about 40 years prior, indicating lack of contemporaneous knowledge. No document is produced evidencing such partition. He speaks about his relationship and that Puttama is related to him as the daughter of his brother- in-law's son and Rangabovi is stated to be his younger brother's wife. 19. From the evidence stated above, it is clear that the evidence does not disclose specific details of partition. It is based largely on hearsay and does not establish the date of partition, mode of division and identification of shares or properties. This evidence fails to substantiate the plea of prior partition. The oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 lacks consistency and is unsupported by any documentary evidence and is insufficient to discharge the burden of proving prior partition which was cast on the defendants. DW3 is another witness who has been examined on behalf of the defendants to substantiate the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 plea of prior partition who has stated in his chief about 60 to 70 years ago the partition during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi. In his cross examination he categorically admits that he did not participate in the alleged partition and he has not seen Giriya Bovi, the original propositus and that he does not know the extent of properties held by Giriya Bovi, the manner of division and allotment of shares to each member. 20. A cumulative reading of DW1 to DW3 reveals that the plea of prior partition is not supported as all the three witnesses admit lack of personal knowledge and unable to share the material particulars such as date of partition, nature of partition, and division of specific property. DW1 contradicts herself in her cross-examination regarding the existence of two wives and knowledge of partition. DW2 and DW3 are not participants to the alleged partition and only on hearsay basis. The reference to the existence of palupatti in their testimony is not supported by pleadings and documents and is contrary to the case of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 the defendants themselves, thereby affecting the credibility. 21. The burden of proof to prove the prior partition lies on the defendants. From the evidence on record, the pleadings are vague and lacking particulars. Oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 is inconsistent and there is no contemporaneous documents produced to establish a prior partition. Both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of evidence have concurrently held that the prior partition is not proved, and the properties continue to be the joint family properties. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellants holding that the alleged prior partition is not established either through pleadings or evidence and the suit for partition is therefore not maintainable. Substantial Question of Law No. (ii). 22. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statement denying the plaint averments, except to the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 limited extent that they admitted the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Giriya Bovi. The written statement for ready reference is being culled out as under: <4) zÁªÁ PÀArPÉ 4 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ zÁªÁ µÀqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë CªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjvÀÄÛ JA§ CA±À ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸Àj. DzÀgÉà F PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ jÃvÁå zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¤dªÀ®è. VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë CªÀgÀÄ fêÀAvÀ«zÁÝUÀ¯Éà PÀ¼ÉzÀ 60-70 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉAiÉÄà PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀªÀÄÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÀAvÉ VjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë 1£Éà ºÉAqÀw a£ÀߪÀÄä£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£Éà ºÉAqÀw aPÀ̪ÀÄä£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a£ÉÆßÃzÀ¨ÉÆë CªÀjUÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ 2£Éà ºÉAqÀw »gÉà ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ PÀjAiÀĨÉÆëUÉ CªÀgÀ ¥Á°UÉ §AzÀAvÀºÀ D¹ÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ §AzÀAvÀºÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F »AzÉAiÉÄà ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆߧ⠪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ aPÀ̪ÀÄä(¥ËªÀw) 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀ§âgÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 5) PÀArPÉ 5gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 M¥ÀÄàªÀÅ¢¯Áè. PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë §ºÀ¼À »AzÉAiÉÄà ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ 1978-79gÀ C¸ÀĪÀiÁj£À°è ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÄà ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀPÀ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀjAiÀĨÉÆëAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÝ PÁgÀt ¥Ëw vÀBSÉÛ jÃvÁå 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ºÀ¼ÉÃPÉÆÃmÉ £ÁqÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀªÀgÀÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À jÃvÁå vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀB26-12-02 gÀAzÀÄ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ jÃvÁå PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAr¯Áè, ¸ÀzÀj PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÄÖ §ºÀ¼À ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, PÀjAiÀiÁ¨ÉÆë ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. F PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ µÀjÃPÀĪÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JA§ CA±À ¤dªÀ®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ RqÁRArvÀªÁV ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 6) PÀArPÉ 6 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§ D¹ÛAiÀįÁè ¸ÀzÀj ¸Àéw£À°è ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F zÁªÁPÁÌVAiÉÄà ¸Àȶ׹PÉÆAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ CdÓ¤UÉ §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 7) PÀArPÉ 7gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ±ÀÄzÁÝAUÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆ宣ÀÄß CzsÀð ¨sÁUÀ »¸Éì PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ PÉýzÁÝgÉ JA§ CA±À ±ÀÄzÁÝAUÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄZÉÆÃzÀå¢AzÀ PÉÆrzÀ zÁªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. ¥ÀæwªÁzÀÄAiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ GqsÁ¥üɬÄAzÀ ªÀwð¹zÀAvÉ JA§ CA±À ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî. ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà »¸Éì §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁV¯Áè. F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ F zÁªÁ vÀA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. 8) PÀArPÉ 8 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÆ¢¹zÀ ªÁådå PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. F zÁªÁPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁådå PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ªÁådå PÁgÀtªÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî. 9) ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ PÉÆÃmïð ¦sÃdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À jÃvÁå ¸Àj¬Ä¯Áè. 10) ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà »¸Éì ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÀ®è. CªÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀĤ߸À®Ä PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå CªÀPÁ±À EgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀAiÀÄ vÀA¢gÀĪÀ zÁªÁªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À RdÄð¸À»vÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ zÀȶ׬ÄAzÀ ¥Áæyð¸À¯ÁVzÉ.= - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 23. The defendants contended that the suit properties are not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, and during the lifetime of Giriya Bovi about 60 to 70 years ago there was a partition of the family properties and in the said property the first wife Chinnamma, children of first wife Chinnamma and the children of second wife Chikkamma, namely Kariya Bovi and Chinnoda Bovi were allotted shares. The entire written statement does not state regarding the existence of any other joint family property, omission of the properties from the suit and about the non-joinder of necessary parties. The defence in the written statement is entirely confined only to the plea of prior partition and exclusive title. The trial Court while framing the issues has framed issues regarding (i) prior partition. (ii) entitlement of plaintiffs and nature of property. However, no issue is framed on partial partition or non-joinder of parties and there is no specific pleading to that effect in the written statement. The plea that the suit is bad for non-inclusion - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 <of all properties and all parties=, cannot be entertained because there is no pleadings exist in the written statement and no issue has been framed by the trial Court and no evidence was led to establish the existence of other properties. It is well settled that a party cannot seek a new plea for the first time in the second appeal, particularly when it is a mixed question of fact and law, and requires evidence. Thus, the contention that <all properties and all parties are not followed= by the Courts below is not available to the appellants and cannot be raised at the stage of second appeal. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the appellants. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15669 RSA No. 898 of 2010 (ii) The judgment and decree of the courts below stands confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28