IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.245 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. G.N. LAKSHMI D/O NAGARAJ @ NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT GERUPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK-563 130.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. NAGARAJ @ NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT HAROHALLI VILALGE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M KASABA HOBLI, Location: HIGH MALUR TALUK-563 130.

COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA (RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.455/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The records disclose that suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming half share in the suit schedule property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of defendant and also contend that herself and defendant constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family. It is also contented that suit schedule property is the joint family property of herself and defendant.

4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the relationship with the plaintiff and when case was set down for evidence, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and though time was taken from 2018 to 2020, the plaintiff did not appear before the Trial Court either for further chief examination or for tendering cross-examination. The records of the Trial Court also disclose that P.W.1 was partly examined and though sufficient opportunity was given to lead further evidence and when the plaintiff did not appear before the Trial Court, the Trial Court deemed as no further chief and posted the case for cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.1 also not subjected herself for cross-examination. When the case was posted for judgment, at that juncture, an application is filed for advancing the case and for further opportunity. The Trial Court dismissed the said application and admittedly, the suit is also dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.18/2021. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that an application is filed before the First Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC along with medical records as well as other documents. The First Appellate Court taking note of the material on record framed the point for consideration and comes to the conclusion that on careful scrutiny of entire order sheet of Trial Court wherein P.W.1 has examined in chief on 21.08.2018. Thereafter, matter was posted for further chief of P.W.1. Later case was called on 23.09.2018, 20.11.2018, 07.01.2019, 12.03.2018, 04.06.2019, 12.07.2019, 06.09.2019 for further chief examination and cross-examination of P.W.1 and also taken note of inspite of sufficient opportunity given for more than a dozen time not subjected for cross-examination or further examined. In paragraph No.20, the First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that suit is filed for the relief of partition by the daughter against the father. On the other hand, defendant has totally denied the relationship of plaintiff with the defendant as a daughter. Under these circumstances, burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the case. But, the plaintiff did not show any valid grounds