Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
Neelamma D/o Late Siddalingappa - Appellant
Versus
Lalithamma D/o Late Siddalingappa – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1105 of 2015
Decided On : 06-08-2025
For the Appellant : Sowmya R.
For the Respondent: Santosh R. Nelkudri
The court upheld lower court findings, determining no fraud was present in the execution of a partition deed, thus validating the dismissal of the appellant's claims.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal challenging partition deed - Appellant claims fraud in deed execution and seeks reinstatement of rights - Courts below found appropriate evidence to dismiss the appeal regarding 'A' property while granting share in 'B' property. (Paras 1, 10, 13)
(B) Findings on evidence - The court emphasized that admission by the plaintiff in criminal proceedings established binding conclusions, thus corroborating lower courts' dismissal of suit regarding Schedule 'A' property. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition from the defendant, claiming fraud in the execution of a partition deed. The defendant countered that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff as consideration for the share. Two properties were in dispute, 'A' and 'B'.
Findings of Court:
The trial court confirmed rights in Schedule 'B' but dismissed claims regarding Schedule 'A', supported by admissions established in evidence relating to the partition deed.
Issues: The main issues involved were the validity of the partition deed and whether the plaintiff's claims were substantiated against the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the courts below had correctly interpreted the evidence and recordings of admissions from the plaintiff regarding the validity of the partition deed, leading to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arose.
Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks partition due to alleged fraud in deed execution. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. evidence from both parties evaluated regarding property claims. (Para 7) |
| 3. final decision rendered dismissing the appeal due to lack of substantial legal questions. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 4. arguments surrounding claims of entitlement to property. (Para 11) |
| 5. court confirms validity of lower court findings and evidence. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2015 passed in R.A. No. 66 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2010 passed in O.S. No. 134 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn), Davangere. The trial court had partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant are the daughters of late Siddalingappa. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of declaration, partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the properties described in the suit schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of the defendant took her to the Sub- Registrar’s office on 26.06.2003 and got a partition deed registered without disclosing its contents to her. The plaintiff contends that she was unaware of the nature and consequences of the said deed and, therefore, claims entitlement to a share in Item No. 1 of the suit schedule property along with the defendant. The plaintiff also contends that Schedule 'B' property is the ancestral property of both parties and seeks her rightful share in the said property as well. Based on these assertions, the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No. 134 of 2007 before the Trial Court.
4. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended specifically that she had developed the Schedule 'A' property by raising a loan and installing a borewell. She further contended that she had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff in lieu of her share in Schedule 'A' property, which was accepted by the plaintiff and consequently, a registered partition deed was executed on 26.06.2003, duly signed by both parties. Therefore, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit in respect of Schedule 'A' property, however, with regard to Schedule 'B' property, the defendant admitted equal rights and claimed a half share along with the plaintiff.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration.
6. To prove their case, the plaintiff examined 08 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked 21 documents as Exhibits P1 to P21. On the other hand, the defendant examined 03 witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and marked 18 documents as Exhibits D1 to D18.
7. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 23.06.2010, decreed the suit partly, granting relief in respect of Schedule 'B' property, however, rejected the claim in respect of Schedule 'A' property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred Regular Appeal in R.A. No. 66 of 2010 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the defendant. Upon re-appreciation of facts and evidence, the First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 12.02.2015, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in OS.No.134 of 2007.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in respect of the Schedule 'A' property, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
9. I have heard S
