IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.653 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. M.S. BYRANNA S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH @ SHIVAIAH @ SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MUDDAMALLANAHALLI VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ SHIVAIAH @ SHIVAPPA Digitally signed W/O HONNAPPA by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Location: HIGH R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE COURT OF KARNATAKA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK - 572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

2. MR. MARUTHI S/O. MR. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 127 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

3. MRS. SHWETHA W/O. MR. BALAKRISHNA D/O. MR. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572120 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5025/2023 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.147/2020 ON THE FILE OF 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 appellant.

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

3. The very case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while claiming 1/3^rd share over the suit schedule properties is that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. Hence, she is entitled for a share.

4. The defendant No.1 took the contention that suit is barred by limitation and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court and answered issue number No.1 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. In paragraph No.9, while discussing the evidence of D.W.1, extracted the admission of D.W.1 that he has admitted that suit schedule properties are his ancestral and joint family properties and only defence which was taken is that he performed the marriage by spending money and the same is also admitted by P.W.1 that defendant No.1 himself performed the marriage of both sisters, who are twins, but their contention is that father had kept the money for performing their marriage. Having taken note of the fact that there was no partition between the members of the joint family, answered issue No.1 as ‘affirmative’ and issue No.2 as ‘negative’, in coming to the conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation and when the parties are in joint possession and there is an existence of joint family status, the question of limitation does not arise and granted the relief of 1/3^rd share.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5025/2023. The First Appellate Court also having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 in paragraph No.11, taken note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties and also taken note of nature of the properties and also there was no division among the family members and the contention of the appellant that he himself performed the marriage by availing loan and considering Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties, since there is no division. To prove the fact that there was a division in the family also, nothing is placed on record. Though it is contended that there was partition between him and his father prior to 20.12.2004, the same is not substantiated. Hence, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of