IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1556 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O VENAKTAREDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENTOF SUBASH ROAD SRINIVASPURA TOWN KOLAR-563 135.

2. SRI. KADIRA REDDY S/OAL TE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAMAKRISHNA ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR-563 135.

Digitally signed (WRONGLY SHOWN AS KADRI REDDY by DEVIKA M IN THE SUIT AND AS KADIREDDY IN RA)

Location: HIGH COURT OF

3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA @ SAKAMMA KARNATAKA W/O KEMPARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF TANK BUDN ROAD CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN: 563125 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O K.R. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O K.R. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENT OF KABIR ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR – 563 125.

3. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O K.R. NARSIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK PIN: 563 125 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.47/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR (ITINERATING AT SRINVASAPURA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.75/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPURA.

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 both the Courts.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession before the Trial Court in O.S.No.75/2012 is that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

4. The defendants appeared and took the specific defence in the written statement that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings, since the dispute is with regard to relationship between the parties as well as nature of the properties, allowed the parties to lead evidence before the Court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have examined first plaintiff as P.W.1 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D24 and no other witnesses have been examined.

6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the evidence of P.W.2 accepted the case of plaintiffs, in coming to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 has remained unchallenged with the relationship of plaintiffs with the defendants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is relevant fact to form an opinion with respect to relationship of the plaintiffs with the defendants and also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 that his father Sri Erappa had performed the marriage of the plaintiffs and also taken note of the conduct of said Erappa which shows that the plaintiffs are having relationship with Sri Erappa as daughters and comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are the children of Sri Erappa and sisters of the defendants and comes to the conclusion that relationship is established. With regard to the nature of the properties is concerned, there is no serious dispute between the parties and additional issue was also considered in paragraph No.34 with regard to non-joiner of necessary parties and also taken note that plaintiffs themselves have admitted that their father had sold the property for legal necessities i.e. Sy.N