IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.473 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE GARALLI DODDA MUNIYAPPA, R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562165.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. YASHODAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed W/O MARIYAPPA, by DEVIKA M R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, Location: HIGH SULIBELE HOBLI, COURT OF HOSAKOTE TALUK, KARNATAKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

2. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O SUBBARAJU, R/AT NO.31, 1^ST MAIN, 2 RA NO.15035 BHUBAN LAYOUT, VENKATALA, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

3. THE TAHASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15035/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1590/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.

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

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of partition on the ground that herself and defendant No.1 constitute undivided Hindu joint family and the suit schedule properties are their joint family ancestral properties. It is contended that the sale deed dated 22.03.2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule properties is not binding upon her and so also defendant No.2 is causing interference as alleged in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint. The defendant No.2 took the contention that the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties are the self-acquired properties of one Narayanappa S/o late Munishamappa of Budigere Village. The defendant No.2 took the specific defence that he is a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties from defendant No.1 and Narayanappa S/o late Munishamappa under the registered sale deed dated 22.03.2006 and since then he is in possession of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court framed the additional issues regarding defence of earlier partition dated 10.01.1982, whether defendant No.1 proves that ‘F’ schedule property originally belongs to his father, whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit schedule properties are his self-acquired properties and whether defendant No.2 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and granted relief in respect of ‘C’ to ‘F’ schedule properties. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is having half share in respect of suit ‘C’ to ‘F’ schedule properties and defendant No.1 is having half share in respect of suit ‘C’ to ‘F’ schedule properties.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15035/2022. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and formulated the point whether the plaintiff proves that herself and defendant No.1 are members of joint family and whether the Trial Court failed to discuss about the documents and admissions given by P.W.1 and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record, answered point No.1 in the affir