- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. PUTTAHUCHAIAH S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI PALYA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572215 2. RAMAIAH S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI PALYA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572215 3. PUTTEERAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT T.PALYA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE HOBLI TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572215 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 4. P.T. DASAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 4(A) SMT. SANNARANGAMMA W/O LATE P.T. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT PEDDANAHALLI KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 219 4(B) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA P.D. W/O M.H. SHANKARAIAH AND D/O LATE P.T. DASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4(C) SMT. RAJAMMA P.D. W/O M.H. NAGARAJU AND D/O LATE P.T. DASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PROPOSED RESPONDENTS No.4(B) AND 4(C) ARE R/AT MELEKALLAHALLI KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 219 4(D) SMT. SUVARNA P.D. W/O VENKATESH T M AND D/O LATE P.T. DASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT ANCHEPALYA (SRIKANTAPURA) NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 073. 4(E) SMT. PARVATHAMMA P.D. W/O NARASIMHARAJU AND D/O LATE P.T. DASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 R/AT NITTURU (HOBLI) (POST) GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 562 126. 4(F) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA P.D. W/O KRISHNAIAH A AND D/O LATE P.T. DASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HEBBURU (HOBLI) (POST), TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 120 4(G) RANGASWAMY S/O LATE P.T. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(H) SHANTHAKUMARA S/O LATE P.T. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PROPOSED RESPONDENT No.4(G) AND 4(H) ARE R/AT PEDDANAHALLI KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 219 5. SMT. SUJIYAMMA W/O P.N. MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT PEDDANAHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572219 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K B PRAKASH S/O LATE BHADREGOWDA @ BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT VEERABHARASWAMY NILAYA, V.R COLONY, POST OFFICE ROAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU CITY 572101 2. K.B. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE BHADREGOWDA @ BHADRAIAH, SINCE DEAD RESPONDENT Nos.1,3 & 7 TO 10 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 3. K.B. UMASHANKAR @ UMESHKUMAR S/O LATE BHADREGOWDA @ BHADRAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(A) SMT. MANJULA T.D. W/O LATE K.B. UMASHANKAR @ UMESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3(B) MISS VARSHINI T.U D/O LATE K.B. UMASHANKAR @ UMESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 3(C) MISS DEVIKA T.U D/O LATE K.B. UMASHANKAR @ UMESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.3(A TO C) ARE R/AT VEERABHARASWAMY NILAYA V.R. COLONY POST OFFICE ROAD SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION TUMAKURU – 572 101 4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O CHIKKAMUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI PALYA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572215 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 5. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O CHIKKEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT T. PALYA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVERKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572215 6. SMT.LINGAMMA W/O BASAVAIAH, (DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 04.10.2016) VIDE ORDER DATED 23.04.2018, PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/2015 RESPONDENTS No.6(A) TO 6(B) HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS RESPONDENTS No.9 AND 10. 7. SMT. SHEELA W/O CHIKKAYARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, REISDING AT SRI LAKSHMI NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, ASHOKA NAGARA, OPPOSITE: GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, TUMAKURU – 572101 8. SMT. MAHALAKSHMI W/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRI KRUPA , R.V COLONY, 1ST MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY 572101 9. T.B. SURESH S/O BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SINCHANA TEA STALL KEB ROAD TUMAKURU CITY – 572 102 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 10. T.B. UMESH S/O BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BEHIND PUTTA ANJANEYA TEMPLE KUVEMPU NAGARA TUMAKURU CITY – 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 (CP No.24/15) R3(A-C), R6(A) AND R9 ARE SERVED V/O DATED 08.11.2024, R1, R3 & R7 TO R10 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R2 V/O DATED 16.12.2024, NOTICE TO R10 H/S V/O DATED 27.06.2017, NOTICE TO R6(B) H/S V/O DATED 18.07.2016, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R7 D/W SRI. K RAVISHANKAR & ANITHA M., ADVOCATE FOR R8) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 6.12.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 6.4.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.215/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., GUBBI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants filed this Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2014 passed in R.A.No. 94 of 2019 by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 06.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.215 of 1999 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gubbi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellants were defendant Nos.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and the other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Bhadregowda @ Bhadraiah was the original propositus. He had 3 sons and 3 daughters i.e., plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 properties of the plaintiff and defendants and they are the members of the joint family, and no partition is effected. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.2, 5 to 9 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is admitted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Bhadraiah. It is denied that defendant No.2 was managing the joint family properties. It is contended that there was a partition effected between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the parties have acted upon the partition. It is contended that there was a severance of status in the family. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 28 documents as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P28. In rebuttal, the defendants have not entered the witness box. 8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part vide judgment dated 06.04.2009, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Defendant Nos.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.215 of 1999, preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 94 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 9. The First appellate court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the relevant point for determination. 10. The First appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 06.12.2014. Defendant Nos.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have filed a written statement during the pendency of the trial, and there were negotiations between the plaintiff and defendants. Hence, for the said reason, the defendants could not lead the evidence. He submits that the trial Court has not given sufficient opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. He also submitted that the first appellate - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 court ought to have remanded the matter to the trial Court granting a permission to the defendants to lead evidence. He submits that , defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of a third party, wherein the plaintiff and other family members of the plaintiff have consented for the said sale, and he also contended that there is a recital in the sale deed regarding the partition effected between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the courts below, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants. 14. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12 are the children of Bhadregowda @ Bhadraiah. It is also undisputed fact that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The contesting defendants filed a written statement contending that there was a partition effected between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, to substantiate the defense of the contesting defendants, the defendants have not entered the witness box to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. 15. The defendants placed reliance on the stray admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination, and contended that there was a partition effected between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. In a suit for partition and separate possession regarding the immovable properties, the court is required to see the pleadings, and entire evidence, and not a stray sentence and the said proposition was laid down by the division bench of this Court in the case of Puttanna Shetty (Deceased) by LRs Vs. Smt. Padma Shetty (Deceased) by LRs. and others - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 reported in (2007) 3 Kant LJ 28, wherein the Division Bench of this Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in fact, a party in possession of best evidence has not chosen to place the best evidence by way of examination of grahasta or by way of filing a memo. In that situation, the court ruled against that a party who has not chosen to place the best evidence. These two judgments supports the plaintiff. Even otherwise, an admission, particularly in a civil matter, dealing with the properties has to be clear, and it has to be read in the light of the pleadings, and the other evidence available on record. One stray sentence cannot be picked up for holding against the plaintiff in the property matter as has been done in the case on hand. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 16. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the defendants have failed to establish that there was a prior partition in between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, and further, the defendants have not produced any records to establish that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. 17. The learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court has not granted sufficient opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. I have perused the order sheet of O.S.No.215/1999. The trial Court has provided a sufficient opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence, despite granting the sufficient opportunity, the defendants did not avail the opportunity and lead evidence. 18. Admittedly, both the courts below have considered the material on record, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6157 RSA No. 329 of 2015 in the impugned judgments, and any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV