IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1539 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SUDHA.

W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HARAVU VILLAGE, Digitally signed CHINAKUARALI HOBLI, by DEVIKA M PANDAVAPURA TALUK.

Location: HIGH COURT O F MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427.

KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA D.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

LAKSHMAMMA W/O. PUTTASWAMY, D/O. PAPEGOWDA R/OF SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

1. SMT. MANJULA. W/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANDYADA KOPPALU VILLAGE, HARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.

2. REKHA, W/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3015, GOKULAM 1^ST STAGE, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001.

3. P. AJAY, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO. 5029/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.23/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.

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 second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in length.

4. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that Item No. 1 of the property is the self-acquired property of Papegowda and Item No.2 property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. They further contended that during the lifetime of Papegowda, he himself effected a partition in respect of Item No.1 of the property and allotted the same to his two sons in equal shares.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the defendants examined 3 witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D9.

6. Upon considering both the oral and documentary evidence, it is not in dispute that the property belongs to the father of Papegowda. The only contention raised is that a partition had taken place during the lifetime of the father as per Ex.D2. However, Ex.D2 is not a registered document, and no material is placed on record to establish that the parties acted upon the said document. Except relying upon Exs.D8 and D9, the tax paid receipts, the death certificate (Ex.D5), and certain bank receipts(Exs.D3 and 4), no supporting evidence has been produced.

7. The Trial Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9^th share. While arriving at this conclusion, the Trial Court observed that there are no materials to believe the version of the defendants. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have produced the oral evidence of one of the attesting witnesses as DW-3, whose evidence supported their case; however, except eliciting that the guardian was defendant No.3, nothing substantial was brought out in his cross-examination. Hence, the Trial Court allowed the notional partition and accordingly granted 1/9th share to the plaintiff.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant