- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. YASHODAMMA W/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O AGRAHARA DODDMAGGE HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 142. 2. NAGAMMA W/O SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 142. 3. SHIVANNA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 142. 4. SHARADAMMA W/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O HARADANAPURA KASABA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 142. 5. MEENAKSHI W/O SHEKHARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O RUDRAPATTANA VILLAGE RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 142. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 6. MANJUNATHA S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O SARAGUR VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 142. 7. RADHA W/O NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE SALIGRAMA HOBLI K R NAGARA TALUK - 573 130. 8. RAVISHA S/O NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE SALIGRAMA HOBLI K R NAGARA TALUK - 571 604. 9. RAMYA @ RANI D/O NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE SALIGRAMA HOBLI K R NAGARA TALUK - 571 604. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGAMMA W/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O SARAGURU VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 2. PUTTAMMA W/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/O DODDABOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 3. JAYAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/O SARAGURU VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 4. SAVITHRAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/O ADAVINAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 5. SAROJAMMA W/O SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O HODENUR VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 6. SAKAMMA W/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O ALUR SOMWARPETE TALUK - 573 130. 7. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O DODDABEMMATHI VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 8. ASHA W/O HIRANNI D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O DODDABEMMATHI VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. 9. GEETHA W/O MANJUNATHA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O ALUR TOWN SOMWARPETE TALUK MADIKERI DISTRICT - 573 130. 10. SUCHITHRA W/O DHARMA D/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O BARAGUR VILLAGE, HAND POST DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK - 573 130. 11. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O SIDDAPURA GATE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK - 573 130. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED IN RA No.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2015 PASSED IN OS No.233/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARKALGUD. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 passed Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Arakalagud, in R.A.no.3/2016 and judgment and decree dated 04.12.2015 by Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Arkalgud, in O.S.no.233/2009, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Jayakara Shetty H., learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeal was by plaintiffs in O.S.no.233/2009 filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. In plaint, it was stated that suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Though plaintiffs demanded share, defendants denied same, constraining them to file suit. 3. On service of suit summons, defendants no.2, 3, 7 and 8 did not appear and were placed ex-parte. Defendants no.1, 4, 5 and 6 entered appearance and defendant no.1 filed written statement disputing nature of suit schedule properties as ancestral joint family properties. It was stated, defendant's grandfather Narasimhaiah was having two children namely Gaviyaiah and Narasimaiah. Gaviyaiah out of his own income - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 had acquired suit schedule properties and after his death, defendants had succeeded to same and were in possession. It was also stated that defendants no.2 and 3 had filed O.S.no.266/1997 arraying defendant no.1 as party and said suit came to be dismissed and present plaintiffs were children of defendants no.2 and 3 and therefore, suit was barred by principles of res judicata and sought dismissal. 4. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: ISSUES: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves suit schedule property are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed in plaint? 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff hit by principle of res judicata? 4) What Decree or Order? 5. In trial, plaintiff no.6 deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P5. On behalf of defendants, one witness was examined as DW.1 and Exhibits-D1 to D37 were got marked. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 6. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to 3 in negative and issue no.4 by dismissing suit. Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed R.A.no.3/2016 on various grounds, based on which, first appellate Court framed following: POINTS: 1) Whether trial Court erred in holding that the suit is hit by principle of res judicata? 2) Whether trial Court further erred in dismissing the suit of plaintiffs without allotting share to them in the suit properties? 3) Whether judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set- aside? 4) Whether interference of this Court is required? 5) What order or decree? 7. However without proper re-appreciation, first appellate Court answered points no.1 to 4 in negative and point no.5, dismissing appeal and confirming trial Court decree, leading to this second appeal. 8. It was submitted that O.S.no.266/1997 was filed by Puttamma and Jayamma for partition in properties of Narasimhaiah and Javaramma claiming share of Narasimhaiah. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 Said suit was dismissed. Since there was no partition, second suit could not be held to be barred. Therefore, following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. a) That whether the both the Courts below are right in law in holding that the suit for partition filed by the appellants is hit by principles of the res judicata and thereby justified in dismissing the very suit? b) That whether the Courts below are justified in law in dismissing the suit for partition filed by the appellants without giving findings on the merits of the suit? c) Whether the Courts below have totally misread and misunderstood the scope of the Section 11 of CPC and thereby have come to erroneous conclusion while dismissing the suit for partition filed by the appellants? Learned counsel sought for answering same in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and to allow appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 10. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for short) by original plaintiffs. Suit was for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties by claiming them to be ancestral joint family properties of Narasimhaiah, common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants. Before trial Court, it was stated that Propositus - Narasimhaiah and his wife Javaramma had two children Gaviyaiah and Narasimhaiah. Gaviyaiah married Sannamma and had two children defendant no.1 - Nagamma and Channajamma. While other son Narasimhaiah married Krishnamma and had two children Puttamma and Jayamma and as there was no division of properties, they were entitled for share. 11. Suit was opposed by defendant no.1 by stating that suit schedule properties were self acquired properties of Gaviyaiah and earlier suit i.e. O.S.no.266/1997 filed by Puttamma and Jayamma for partition of very same properties, was dismissed and therefore, present suit by children of Puttamma and Jayamma was barred under Section 11 of CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4251 RSA No. 580 of 2022 12. While passing impugned judgment, both Courts have referred to provisions of Section 11 of CPC. Admittedly, plaintiffs are legal heirs of Puttamma and Jayamma, who were plaintiffs in earlier suit. Present plaintiffs are not having any independent claim and are claiming their right through Puttamma and Jayamma. Therefore, provisions of Section 11 of CPC would be squarely attracted and findings in O.S.no.266/1997 that suit schedule properties were self- acquired properties of Gaviyaiah would disentitle relief. It is also seen that defendant no.1 had produced judgment and decree passed in O.S.no.266/1997 as Exhibit-D2 and relying on same, findings are recorded. Thus, findings of both Courts are concurrent and based on material on record and cannot be stated to be suffering from perversity. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38