IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

DODDAGANGAMMA W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O SUGGANAPALYA GUBBI TALUK 572 216, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE SIDDARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by R/O MELEHALLI PANKAJA S TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101 Location: HIGH TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN RA NO 242/2016 (OLD NO.53/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2009 PASSED IN OS NO.431/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, TUMKUR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that Nanjundappa, father of the plaintiff had two wives namely Siddamma and Siddalingamma. Plaintiff is the daughter of Nanjundappa and Siddamma. However, Siddalingamma had no issues. Hence, after the death of Nanjundappa, plaintiff inherited his property i.e. the suit schedule property and put in possession of the same. The defendant, who claims to be the adopted son of Siddalingamma (second wife of Nanjundappa) attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff by denying her title. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant.

3. However, defendant denied the plaint averments by filing written statements dated 25.07.2003 and 06.11.2007 respectively contending there was unregistered Partition Deed/Palupatti dated 18.03.1985 executed between the plaintiff and Siddlingamma. After demise of Nanjundappa and by virtue of said Partition Deed, Siddalingamma obtained suit schedule property and she executed a Will dated 31.08.1999 in favour of defendant, who is her adopted son. As such, he is having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.

4. The Trial Court based on rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and after considering the evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff being the only legal heir of late Nanjundappa, she has rightly inherited the suit schedule property, whereas the defendant failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will dated 31.08.1999. Accordingly, the suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and the defendant was permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the Trial Court has not considered Ex.D2 - Palupatti so also the registered Will executed in favour of the defendant. By virtue of the Will, the defendant succeeded to the property and accordingly allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

6. Heard Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Respondent though served, remained unrepresented.

7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintff is that the First Appellate has grossly erred while setting aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court based on the Will i.e., Ex.D1. According to him, Siddalingamma had no title in respect of suit schedule property to execute the Will in favour of the defendant since Ex.D2 - Palupatti is not proved as it is an unregistered document and according to the defendant, he came to know about the said Palupatti after execution of the Will. As such, question of