IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.687 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. SIDDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT DEVARATHOPU KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK PIN CODE: 572 127.

2. SMT. KANAKALAKSHMI W/O. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT YERRSANIPALLI THAMBALAPALLI MANDAL MADNAPALLI TALUK Digitally signed CHITTOOR DISTRICT by DEVIKA M ANDRAPRADESH Location: H IGH PIN CODE: 517 418.

COURT OF …APPELLANTS KARNATAKA (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI KIRAN M. PETHI S/O. MANIARUS M. PETHI AGED ABOUT 32 YEASR R/AT MAIDHANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK PIN CODE: 577 127.

2. SRI. R.B. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. R.S. BASAVARAJU

3. SRI. R.V. BABU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O. B.R. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY

4. SRI. R.V. RAVI TEJA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O. B.R. VENKATA SHIVAREDDY

5. SRI. GIRISH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. R.S. BASAVARAJU

6. SMT. PALAVI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O. GIRISH

7. SMT. LAVANYA D/O. GIRISH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

8. MS. VIDYA D/O. GIRISH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

9. SRI. R.S. BASAVARAJU S/O. LATE SANJIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 10. SRI. R.B. DINESH S/O. BASAVARAJU R.S., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 ARE R/AT REDDYHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK PIN CODE: 572 127.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADARSHA K.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5012/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.

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 appellants.

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

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that all the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and all of them are members of the joint family and sale deed executed on 05.02.2015 by plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 is by fraud, misrepresentation and cheating. The plaintiffs further contend that plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 to 8 are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties, for partition and separate possession and all of them are entitled for 4/6^th share.

4. The defendant No.1 took the contention in the written statement that suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant No.1 also contend that suit is filed only for the properties which are sold in his favour and the same is not maintainable for partial partition. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the documents Exs.P1 to P7 and also the evidence of D.W.1 and the documents Exs.D1 to D5, comes to the conclusion that properties are not available for partition, since the properties are already sold by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and even inspite of properties were sold by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4, the present suit is filed along with plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that suit is filed in respect of the properties which have been sold in favour of defendant No.1 and all other family properties are not included. Hence, answered issue No.6 in ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that suit is bad for partial partition and also comes to the