The First Appellate Court correctly found no evidence of a previous partition, justifying the decree for partition as the plaintiffs lacked any supporting material for claims of an earlier division.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K.P.Thrimurthy, Sri S.A. Sudheendra, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri K.Shivashankar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents in both the appeals.

2. These two appeals came to be admitted by the order dated 21.07.2025 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court justified in decreeing the suit for partition?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court justified in over-

looking the partition which effected in the year

1958?

3. For the sake of convenience and for certainty, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under:

Defendant No.4 has filed RSA No.289/2023 and defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have filed RSA No.1689/2022 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.302/2008 dated 05.07.2018 on the file of the I Addl.

HC-KAR Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura and R.A.No.120/2018 dated 17.08.2022 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapura.

5. Plaintiffs filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the immovable properties mentioned below, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.

“(1) All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.74, measuring an extent of 0-19 guntas, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on:

East by : Inamthi land, West by : D.Sathyanarayana Shetty’s land, North by : Railway road, South by : Raja Kaluve.

(2) Property bearing Sy.No.73, measuring an extent of 0-10¾ guntas, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on:

East by : Land of N.C.Munireddy, West by : Bhaskara’s land, North by : PWD road, South by : Railway track.

(3) Property bearing HL No.1/94, measuring East to West 18 feet, North to South 13½ feet, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk.

HC-KAR (4) Property bearing HL No.2-30/1, measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 30 feet, situated at Nayanahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk.

6. At the outset, even though appeals came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RSA No.289/2023 files a memo reporting to the Court that on 22.05.2020 defendant No.2 and his children have sold the item No.1 of the suit property in favour of Smt.R.Padma.

7. Likewise, defendant No.4 has purchased the item No.2 of the suit properties to the extent of 3/4^th of the land. Likewise, defendant No.2 who is appellant No.2 before this Court in RSA No.1689/2022 has entered into agreement of sale with Smt.Anita.

8. In other words, the parties have meddled with the suit property pending litigation.

9. When the first defendant has already sold item No.4 of the suit property on 22.05.2020, suppressing such a sale and filing the appeal in RSA No.1689/2022 itself is incorrect and on HC-KAR the score of suppression of material facts itself the appeal needs to be dismissed.

10. Nevertheless, the substantial questions of law raised are with regard to the justification of decreeing of the suit for partition and overlooking the earlier partition effected in the year 1958.

11. In that regard, this Court heard the arguments of the parties and noted that before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court no cogent material is placed on record to establish the earlier partition said to have been effected in the year 1958.

12. Revenue entries were not mutated soon after the said oral partition, nor any witnesses have been examined to establish the oral partiti