- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2013 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. NANJEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT RACHENAHALLI, K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-45. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T SHESHAGIRI RAO., AND SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. N. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NANJAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT HANABE VILLAGE & POST, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK – 561 204. 2. SRI. N SUNIL KUMAR S/O NARAYANA, R L JALAPPA’S GRAND SON, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT SOMESHWARA EXTENSION, 1ST BLOCK, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN – 561 203 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 3. SRI. B VENKATA RAO S/O MADHAVA RAO AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT APARTMENT NO. 402, NO.9, CLARKE ROAD, CLARKE VILLE, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 025. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O N MUNIYAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT HANABE VILLAGE AND P.O., DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. – 561 204 5. SRI. M RAJANNA S/O N MUNIYAPPA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT HANABE VILLAGE AND P.O., DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. – 561 204 6. SRI. M LOKESH S/O N MUNIYAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT HANABE VILLAGE AND P.O., DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. – 561 204 7. SMT. PADMA D/O B N MUNIYAPPA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT HANABE VILLAGE AND P.O., DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. – 561 204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V SATHYANARAYANA & ASSTS. FOR R4 TO R7 SRI. C NANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R2 SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 10.9.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, DODDABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 29.11.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.172/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., DODDABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 10.09.2012 passed in RA No.22/2011 by the learned Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur (‘First Appellate Court’ for short) and the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 passed in OS No.172/2005 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur (‘Trial Court’ for short). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. Appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants alleging that one Nanjaiah was the original propositus. He had two sons namely Nanjaiah and Channappa. Defendant No.1 is the son of Nanjaiah, defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.1, defendant No.6 is the wife of defendant No.5 – who is the son of defendant No.1, defendant No.7 is the son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.8 is the wife of defendant No.7. Channappa has a son by name Nanjegowda, who is the plaintiff. It is contented that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties in the hands of the father of the plaintiff and father of defendant No.1. When they were alive, they lived as members of the joint family without effecting any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 partition. The father of defendant No.1 passed away in 1992, whereas the father of the plaintiff passed away in 1993. After the demise of their fathers, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived together as members of the joint family without effecting any partition by enjoying all the suit schedule properties jointly. The father of defendant No.1 was the eldest male member of the family. When he was alive, he was looking after the affairs of the joint family and he died in 1992. The father of the plaintiff died in 1993. The revenue entries were changed and stood in the name of Nanjaiah i.e., defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendants are the members of the Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, however, the defendants refused to effect partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 3.2. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the plaintiff with the defendants and it is contented that the plaintiff has been settled in Bengaluru City and the plaintiff has filed a suit only with the sole intention to harass the defendants. The father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 were living separately since very long and they were cultivating the properties separately. Khatha of the family properties were mutated in the name of the plaintiff’s father and defendant No.1’s father in terms of the partition as per MR No.7/2000-01 and the plaintiff’s father and defendant No.1’s father had been residing separately since 1996. As on the date of filing the suit, there was severance of status and the suit properties were not joint family properties. Hence, on these grounds, prayed to dismiss the suit. 3.3. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement contending that, he had purchased Sy.No.100/1B measuring 2 acres 7 guntas under a registered sale deed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 dated 29.11.2005 and 31.05.2007. Defendant No.3 had purchased the said property from defendant No.1 so that defendant No.1 would clear the antecedent debts of the joint family and the plaintiff had the knowledge of the said fact. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit against defendant No.3. 3.4. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether plaintiff prove that katha of the suit schedule properties are still continued in the name of defendant's father inspite of ancestral properties divided long ago in between his father and that of the defendant? 2. Whether plaintiff further prove that defendant refused to give away his ½ share in the schedule against the properties as defendant contending that through a panchayath dt: 10/03/96 the plaintiff has taken away the same? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to get the relief of Partition and separate Possession, if so in which of the schedule properties? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to get the mesne profits and at what rate? 5. For what order or decree? Additional Issues framed on 08.02.2010 1. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the first defendant sold the property as a kartha and for legal necessity? 2. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has no right? 3.5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1, examined 1 witness as DW2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.D1 to D9. 3.6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 3.7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No.172/2005, preferred an appeal in RA No.22/2011 on the file of the First Appellate Court. 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: Point No.1 - Whether the said judgement and decree passed by the trial court under appeal is perverse, capricious, arbitrary and it calls for any interference by this court? Point No.2 - What order and decree? 3.9. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2012. 3.10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees, filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and no partition is effected between the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 and they are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family. The Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that there was a partition in the form of Panchayat Parikat on 10.03.1996. Both the Courts below have not adequately appreciated the entire evidence placed on record. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submit that, a partition was effected in the form of Panchayat Parikat on 10.03.1996, and based on the Panchayat Parikat, the revenue authorities accepted the mutation as per MR No.7/2000-01. Since from the date of partition, the parties are in possession of their respective - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 properties and to substantiate their defence, the defendants have produced Ex.D3 - the Palupatti dated 10.03.1996 and both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments, and accordingly on these grounds, pray to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court, vide order dated 23.01.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the courts below were justified in relying upon Ex.D3 to hold that there was an equitable partition between the plaintiff and the defendant? (ii) Whether the courts below failed to consider that mere separate living by one member of the family amounts to a severance in the status of joint family? Reg. Substantial Questions of Law: 8. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other. Hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. During the course of cross- examination, the plaintiff admitted is signature on Ex.D3 i.e., Palu Patti, which was executed on 10.03.1996. He has also admitted that, his father and his brothers were living separately from one another for more than 30 years and separately cultivating their respective properties, and he is residing in Bengaluru from 1981 and never cultivated the suit lands jointly with defendant Muniyappa. 10. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and he has denied that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties as of the date of filing the suit. He has deposed that, partition was effected between the plaintiff and the defendants on 10.03.1996; defendants have produced Ex.D3, which discloses that a partition was effected between the plaintiff and the defendants and the properties have fallen to the share of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 the plaintiff and the defendants, and further, the plaintiff himself has admitted his signature on Ex.D3. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the partition effected in 1996 is unequal. If the partition effected in 1996 was unequal, the plaintiff ought to have sought for re-opening of partition, however, the plaintiff has not sought for re-opening of partition effected in 1996. The plaintiff filed a suit as if no partition was effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff has suppressed regarding the execution of Ex.D3 and the plaintiff had knowledge regarding execution of Ex.D3 in 1996 and the suit was filed in 2005. Both the Courts below were justified in placing reliance upon Ex.D3 to hold that, there was an equitable partition between the plaintiff and the defendants; the plaintiff had admitted that they are living separately for more than 30 years. Mere separate living by one member of the family would not amount to severance of status of joint family, however, in view of Ex.D3, it clearly discloses that there was an - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5385 RSA No. 158 of 2013 equitable partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. 12. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative. In view of the same, substantial question of law No.2 does not arise for consideration. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The regular second appeal is dismissed; ii. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed; iii. No order as to the costs; iv. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA | CT:KHV | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23