IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. AYATHARAPPA, S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAYANAROPPA VILLAGE, NIDAGALA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561 202.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. N.M. OBANNA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M

2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, Location: H IGH D/O LATE MARAPPA, COURT OF W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

BOTH THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NIDAGAL VILLAGE, NIDAGALA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK-561202.

3. SRI. NINGAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O AMARAPURAM VILLAGE, MADAKASIRA TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-515301.

4. SMT. SAKAMMA, D/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NIDAGAL VILLAGE, NIDAGALA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK–561202.

5. SRI. OBALESH, S/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

6. SRI. AMARESH, S/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/O AMARAPURAM VILLAGE, MADAKASIRA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT–515301.

7. SMT. PALAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

8. SMT. PAVITHRAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

9. SMT. SUMITHRAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 10. SMT. KAVITHAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 11. SMT. MALASHREE, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

12. RAMAKKA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYA, D/O MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 12 ARE R/O NIDAGAL VILLAGE, NIDAGALA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561202.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.74/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA.

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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, it is contended that the suit schedule properties belongs to the family and they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties, since they belong to un-divided joint family and they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.10 appeared before the Court and contended that he had purchased 2/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties from Ramakrishna and Ningappa by virtue of sale deed dated 26.04.2006. The Trial Court considering the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties and while granting the relief made it clear that the land sold to defendant No.10 shall be allotted towards the share of defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, Neelamma and Ramakrishna.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court that the Trial Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 9 and they are in joint possession of those properties and the Trial Court is justified in holding that defendant No.10 has failed to establish that he had purchased 2/3^rd share of Ramakrishnappa and Ningappa under sale deed dated 26.04.2006. The First Appellate Court considering the material on record, answered point Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error.

5. Being aggr