- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2113 OF 2010 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. B. MUNIRAJU S/O. G RAMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. G. RAMALINGAM S/O.CHIKKAGULLAIAH R/AT.NO.49, BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 037. 2. SRI NANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS 2a) SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE NANJAPPA @NANJAPPA REDDY 2b) SRI. SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA REDDY MAJOR Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 2c) SRI. RAGHU REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA @NANJAPPA REDDY MAJOR 2d) SMT. CHANDRAMMA S/O LATE NANJAPPA @NANJAPPA REDDY MAJOR 2e) SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE NANJAPPA @NANJAPPA REDDY MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT MARATHHALLI VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 037. 3. SMT SARASWATHI W/O. G RAMALINGAM MAJOR R/AT DODDAKANNALLI VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK -560 037. 4. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O.MUNIVENKATAPPA D/O.G RAMALINGAM R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 5. SMT PILLAMMA W/O.SUBRAMANI D/O.G RAMALINGAM MAJOR R/AT KOLLIPURA ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK. 6. SMT PADMA W/O.PARAMESH D/O. G RAMALINGAM MAJOR R/AT.GATTAHALLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K .,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2(A TO E) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7) THIS RFA IS FILED U/O-43, RULE-1, R/W, SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED19.08.2010 PASSED IN O.S.2116/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 7. SMT DODDAMUNIYAMMA W/O.SAMPANGI D/O.G RAMALINGAM R/AT.MAYASANDRA VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.2116/1997 is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), by which the suit for partition and separate possession has been dismissed. 2. Subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy.No.7, measuring 1 acre and 28 guntas, situated at Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit schedule property'). 3. Case of the plaintiff is that one Chikkagullaiah, his grandfather was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He having acquired the same out of his self-earning. Thus, the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Chikkagullaiah. That Chikkagullaiah passed away in the year 1971, leaving behind his wife Smt. Yellama and nine children, namely; 1. Smt. Chikka Pillamma; 2. Sri. Krishnappa; 3 Sri. G. Ramalingam; 4. Sri. Lakshmaiah; 5. Smt. Gowramma; 6. Sri. Subbarayappa; 7. Sri. Venkataswami; 8. Sri.Muniswami, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 9. Sri. Rajappa. Plaintiff is the 6th child of Sri. G. Ramalingam, who is the third son of Chikkagullaiah. 4. That upon the demise of Chikkagullaiah, the suit schedule property was inherited by his sons. As such, it became joint family ancestral property. Defendant No.1, father of the plaintiff, had limited right, title and interest over the property. He was addicted to bad habits and hobnobbing with friends with many vices with anti-social elements. Plaintiff is a sufferer and was put to inconvenience and humiliation with an intention of meeting his unlawful, extravagant, squandering and expenditure habits, he sold the property without any family necessity in favour of defendant No.2, in terms of deed of sale dated 18.11.1985 (Ex.D1), giving rise to the cause of action of the suit and constraining the plaintiff to file the suit seeking following reliefs: '' (a) decreed for division of the schedule property by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff in possession of ½ (half) share in the suit schedule property. (b) to declare the transaction between the first defendant and the second defendant under sale deed dated 18.11.1985 is not binding on the plaintiff's. (c) grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case. '' - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 5. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the other children of defendant No.2 were impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 7. Defendant Nos.3 to 7 filed written statement concurring and consenting to the averments made in the plaint and sought for their respective shares. 6. Defendant No.2 the lone contestant having purchased the property filed written statement denying the plaint averments and allegation. It is contented that plaintiff has no share, right and title in the suit property and he purchased the suit property in terms of deed of sale dated 18.11.1985 for the valuable sale consideration, ever since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 7. Based on the pleading, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale vide sale deed dated 18.11.1985 by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is not for legal necessities? 4. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation ? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 5. Whether the 2nd defendant further proves that the genealogical tree furnished by the plaintiff is not proper and correct? 6. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the last 17 years? 7. Whether the 2nd defendant further proves that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper ? 8. What Order or what decree ? 8. Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit was represented by his mother and natural guardian Smt. Jayamma. However, plaintiff having attained majority has examined himself as PW1 and has exhibited 20 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of defendants, four witnesses have been examined as DWs.1 to 4 and exhibited 21 documents which is marked as Exs.D1 to D21. 9. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative, issue Nos.6 and 7 in the affirmative, issue No.5 as not arising for consideration and consequently dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, plaintiff is before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant herein taking this Court through the records submits that though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the suit schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 property was the self-acquired absolute property of his grandfather Chikkagullaiah, since the same was purchased in the year 1937, prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the succession having been opened after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property has to be treated as a ancestral joint family property and plaintiff having share in the said property. In justification of his proposition he relies upon the following judgments: 1. Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987)1 SCC 204. 2. Sh. Surender Kumar Vs. Sh. Dhani Ram and others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 333. 3. Smt. Rani and another Vs. Smt. Santa Bala Debnath and Others reported in 1970 (3) SCC 722. 11. He also relies upon Ex.P16, which is a purported release deed executed by the wife of Chikkagullaiah (grandmother of the plaintiff) purportedly releasing shares in the suit property in favour of her children including defendant No.1, who is her son. Thus, based on these two factual and legal aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 plaintiff/appellant vehemently submits that the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the legal position and has mechanically dismissed the suit holding the suit to be not maintainable at the hands of the plaintiff during the lifetime of his father. 12. Sri. Girish Kumar B.M, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7 supports the case of the plaintiff/appellant herein. 13. Heard and perused the records. 14. The only point that arise for consideration is; 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.2116/1997? 15. Since the very plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that the suit schedule property is a self-acquired property of his grandfather-Chikkagullaiah, there is no need or necessity to probe further with regard to the nature of property, i.e., whether or not it is ancestral joint family property. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 16. There is also no dispute of the fact that Chikkagullaiah passed away in the year 1971, leaving behind his wife and aforesaid children. Succession opened only upon his demise, by which time the Hindu Succession Act was in force. In terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, each being entitled for 1/8th share. Each of the legal heirs of the Chikkagullaiah has every right to deal with the property as his absolute property. Plaintiff being the son of defendant No.1 cannot therefore claim to be the coparcener of the property having any pre-existing right, title and interest over the property during the lifetime of defendant No.1. 17. Perusal of the aforesaid judgments would indicate that the same were rendered on the admitted facts of properties involved therein being ancestral properties and the members therein were the members of joint family. Reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid judgments is of no avail inasmuch as the property of the instant case is admittedly absolute property of Chikkagullaiah-grandfather of plaintiff/appellant herein. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8659 RFA No.2113 of 2010 18. Trial Court having appreciated these aspects of the matter has come to a just conclusion which cannot be found fault with. Appeal lacks merit and same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, all pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13