- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1711 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SRINIVASA H K S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT HONNAPURA VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT -572 175 2. H.K.RAMAKRISHNA S/O H.KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT HONNESHWARA SWAMY NILAYA TUDA LAYOUT TUMKURU -572175 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANANDA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYAMMA W/O SHIVANANDA D/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KALLAMBELLA, SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT -572 137 2. PUSHPAVATHI W/O M.BHASKAR D/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT 6TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR TUMKURU -572 101 Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA DEAD BY HER LRS' ARE ALREADY ON RECORD SMT.JAYAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O LATE KAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KATAVEERANHALLI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT -572 137 4. SMT.RATHNAMMA D/O LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SMT. MANJAMMA D/O LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 7. SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT49 YEARS 8. KANTHARAJU S/O LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 9. ASHWATH S/O LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 9 ARE R/AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK. TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 175 10. K.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE S.KAMANNA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT KATAVEERANAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT -572 137 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIVEK B.R., FOR SRI.KASHYAP N.NAIK., ADVOCATES FOR C/R-10) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.30/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.309/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(e) challenging the judgment and decree rendered by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri in R.A. No.30/2020 dated 16.7.2025, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment & decree rendered by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri in O.S. No. 309 of 2012. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of brevity. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 4.1 The original plaintiff - Smt. Savitramma filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession of her one-third share in the suit schedule properties and for consequential relief of declaration to declare that the registered gift deed dated 07.04.2011 executed by defendant no. 1 and deceased Nagamma in favour of defendant no. 9, is not binding on her. 4.2 It is the case of plaintiff that original propositus - Sannakamanna had two wives by name Mallakka and Muddamma. Said Muddamma had four children by name Parvathamma, Kamadasappa, Halamma and Savithamma (plaintiff). Out of four children, Parvathamma died leaving behind the defendant Nos.2 to 8. The 2nd son - Kamadasappa is no more, but he had had two wives by name Nagamma and Parvathamma. Out of them, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 Nagamma died issueless. The 3rd daughter - Halamma is also no more. 4.3 It is further case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Earlier, the brother of the original plaintiff i.e. Kamadasappa was looking after the affairs of the suit schedule properties as the Manager of the joint family. After his death, his wife - Parvathamma was looking after the affairs of the family. After the death of Sannakamanna, khatha of the suit schedule properties was mutated in the name of Kamadasappa on the basis of inheritance rights, 4.4 It is also case of the plaintiff - Smt. Savithramma that she came to know that both wives of Kamadasappa i.e., defendant No.1 and Nagamma have gifted suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties to defendant no. 9 by virtue of registered gift deed dated 7.4.2011. Defendant No.9 has not accepted the gift and hence the alleged gift deed is null and void and not binding on plaintiff. After coming to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 know about the same, plaintiff demanded defendant No.1 to allot her share in all the suit schedule properties, but defendants did not agree to her request. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession. 4.5 Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared and defendant no. 1 filed the written statement, which was adopted by defendant nos. 2 to 8. In the written statement, defendant No.1 denied the entire averments made in the plaint by contending that Sannakamanna died on 06.04.1955, by that time, marriage of plaintiff, Kamadasappa and other children was solemnized and during his life time, suit properties were partitioned amongst all the three sons i.e, Sannamallappa, Sannadasappa and Kamadasappa, by way of oral partition. Therefore, there was no joint family in existence as suit item Nos.1 to 3 were given to the share of Kamadasappa and it was in his separate possession. It is further case of the defendants that after the death of husband of defendant No.1 i.e., Kamadasappa, both Nagamma and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 Parvathamma have gifted item Nos.1 to 6 of the suit properties in favour of defendant No.9 by way of a registered gift deed dated 7.4.2011. Later Nagamma purchased suit item No.7 property out of financial assistance of her brother, and constructed 'Ammaji Kalyana Mantapa in suit item no.7 and gifted the said property to defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 voluntarily executed the Will on 22.10.2012 bequeathing the said property in favour of smt. Lakshmidevi, who is the wife of her brother Dr. Srinivas and she is the exclusive owner of Item No. 7 of the suit properties. On these grounds, defendants sought to dismiss the suit. 4.6 Based on the pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: i. Whether the plaintiff proves that she along with defendants No.1 to 8 constitutes Hindu undivided family and suit schedule properties are their ancestor and joint family properties? ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 and deceased Nagamma in favour of defendant No.9 is null and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 void and does not confer any right, title or possession to defendant No.9? iii. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that during the lifetime of original propositer Sannakamanna, he has effected partition among all his three sons and ever since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective time shares? iv. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that item No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property were given to Kamadasappa and it was his separate possession and enjoyment and plaintiff has no right over the said properties ? v. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the item No.7 of the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of Nagamma and she has gifted the same in favour of defendant No.1 under a registered gift deed dated 12-07-2011? vi. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she has voluntarily executed Will in favour of Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o Dr. Srinivas and D/o Honnamma under a Will dated 22-10-2012? vii. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiff is not entitled the share as Sannakamanna died on 06-04-1955, much prior to the date of Hindu Succession Act ? viii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 ix. Whether the suit is valued properly and court fee paid is sufficient ? x. Whether the parties are entitled for the reliefs sought? If so to what extent? xi. What order or decree ? 4.7 In order to substantiate the issues and prove her case, plaintiff examined her husband, who is her power of attorney holder as PW.1 and her daughter - Vijayamma as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Defendants examined defendant no. 9 as DW1 and another witness as DW.2 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D15. 4.8 On the basis of materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any good case to show that the properties are joint family and ancestral properties, for grant of partition and accepted the case of defendants that there existed an earlier partition between the sons of Sannakamanna and denied the relief claimed by the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 4.9 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court in RA No. 30 of 2020. 4.10 Upon summons being served in the said first appeal, the respondents appeared and contested the matter. Upon reconsideration of the matter once again, the first appellate Court formulated the following points for consideration: i) Whether the appellant made out ground to permit them to produce additional document? ii) Whether the proposed amendment is very much necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties ? iii) Whether the trial court was justified in holding that plaintiff miserably failed to prove the existence of joint family and nature of the suit property has ancestor and joint family properties? iv) Whether impugned judgment of trial court needs to be interference? v) What order or decree ? 4.11 The first Appellate Court, upon reconsideration and re-analysing the entire materials on record including - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the evidence of the parties before the trial Court, extracted the same in its judgment and came to the conclusion that there existed an oral partition earlier between Kamadasappa and his brothers during the lifetime of Sannadasappa and pursuant to which, the khatha was effected and the revenue records were changed. Therefore, did not find favour with the appellants-plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 4.12 Being aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts, the appellants-plaintiffs questioned the same in this appeal on the ground that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have dismissed the suit on an erroneous presumption solely on the basis of the admission made by the witnesses of the plaintiffs in their cross-examination. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs vehemently contended that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not considered the material evidence on record and the findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse. It is further contended by learned counsel that both the Courts have failed to recognise the admission of one co-sharer cannot extinguish the rights of the other co- sharers. Therefore, the judgments and decree rendered by both the Courts are illegal and contrary to the materials available on record. It indicates that there is substantial questions of law that requires to be framed as urged in the appeal memo. On these grounds, he seeks this Court to frame substantial questions of law for further consideration of the matter. 6 Per contra, learned counsel for caveator- respondent No.10-defendant No.9, who is present through Video Conferencing, contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court, so also, the first Appellate Court. He further contends that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 both the Courts have adverted to the evidence produced by the parties and based on the evidence adduced by PWs.1 and 2, the judgments and decree are rendered by both the Courts dismissing the case of the plaintiffs, as no case is made out by the plaintiffs. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel that the witnesses of the plaintiffs have themselves admitted to the fact that there was an oral partition. On the basis of the admissions made by PWs.1 and 2 in the course of cross- examination, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have negatived the claim of the plaintiffs. It is further contended by learned counsel that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have gone through the evidentiary material placed on record, which even according to the plaintiffs, depicts that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of family members between the plaintiffs and the defendants and there existed an oral partition earlier to filing of the suit and the same was acted upon. Thereafter, the revenue records were - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 changed. Accordingly, the same has been admitted in the evidence by the witnesses of the plaintiffs namely, PWs.1 and 2 and accordingly, the trial Court did not find favour with the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit, which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for appellants- plaintiffs and learned counsel for defendant No.9- respondent No.10. 9. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to issue notice to other respondents, as this Court is not inclined to admit this appeal or frame any substantial questions of law for the following reasons: It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The original plaintiff- Smt.Savithramma, who is the wife of Kariyappa and daughter of Sannakamanna, filed a suit seeking partition of the joint family properties. However, instead of stepping into the witness box herself, she appointed a Special - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 Power of Attorney holder who is none other than her husband and he adduced evidence as PW.1. During the course of evidence, PW.1 admitted that item Nos.4 and 5 of the suit schedule property are self-acquired properties of Kamadasappa. He has also admitted that a gift deed is executed by defendant No.1 and Nagamma in respect of suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties in favour of defendant No.9. He has also admitted that during the lifetime of original propositus-Sannakamanna, his children got divided the properties amongst themselves and suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties had fallen to the share of Kamadasappa. He has also categorically admitted that there was an oral partition that had taken place between the sons of Sannakamanna and he has exhibited his ignorance as to in whose name, the suit schedule properties are standing. 10. Along with PW.1, another witness was examined as PW.2, who is none other than the daughter of the original plaintiff-Savithramma. During her cross- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 examination, she has also admitted that the partition having taken place between the sons of Sannakamanna, which was prior to her birth. Therefore, the plaintiffs' witnesses PWs.1 and 2 have in fact given up their claims admitting to the fact that the partition had taken place earlier and the properties were divided between the sons of Sannakamanna, so also, mutations were effected and they were in their respective possession of properties. 11. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court have examined all these aspects elaborately and taken into consideration the admissions made by the plaintiffs' witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 that the partition was a fair partition. However, the trial Court did not find favour with the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and the same has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court. 12. In view of the fact that both the Courts have adverted to all the merits and facts of the matter and on careful perusal of the evidentiary material, both oral and documentary, nothing further survives for this Court to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 venture into examining the factual aspects of the matter when the witnesses of the plaintiffs themselves have admitted to the suggestions put forth by the defendants in the cross-examination. 13. Section 100 of CPC deals with the scope and powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already considered the question of fact and the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both the Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record. 14. The question of framing of substantial questions of law would depend upon if there is any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts and having gone through the records, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgments rendered by both the Courts. The appellants have not made out any good ground for this Court to frame any substantial question of law, as no such question of law, in my opinion, exists to be framed to decide the case on hand. The reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by both the Courts are just and proper. 15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to accept the contentions of learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15768 RSA No. 1711 of 2025 that there exist any substantial questions of law to be framed for further consideration of the matter, as both the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have dealt with the matter and decided the same on the basis of the admissions and materials placed on record. 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission itself. No questions of law deserve to be framed in this appeal. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE pages 1 to 10 .. GSS 11 to end… LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45