IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. K. JAYARAMAIAH S/O LATE M.C.KRISHNAPPA AGED 77 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA NEAR POLICE QUARTERS MANDYA – 571 408.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NIJALINGAIAH S/O KARIGOWDA AGED 61 YEARS R/O SHIVARA VILLAGE.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M

2. K. MUDDALINGAIAH Location: H IGH S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED 81 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA NEAR POLICE QUARTERS MANDYA-571436. 3. K. NAGARAJU S/O LATE M.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED 68 YEARS P.D.O., SANTHEKASALAGERE GRAMPANCHAYAT R/O 1^ST CROSS, SHANKARANAGAR MANDYA-571 436.

4. K. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O ALWTE M.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED 66 YEARS R/O MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI R/O MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 436.

5. SMT. K.R. RADHA W/O LATE K. PURUSHOTTAMA AGED 54 YEARS

6. M.P. DINAKAR S/O LATE K. PURUSHOTTAMA AGED 27 YEARS

7. M.P. VISHWAS S/O LATE K. PURUSHOTTAM AGED 25 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE R/O ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA NEAR RICE MILL, MANDYA CITY-571 436.

8. MANJU S/O LATE K. JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKACHANNAIAH AGED 54 YEARS R/O MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 436.

9. ANANDA S/O LATE K. JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKACHANNAIHA AGED 50 YEARS R/O SHANKARANAGAR

1^ST CROSS, SHANTHI NILAYA NEAR AMBUJAMMA PARK MANDYA-571 436.

10. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE K. JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKACHANNAIAH AGED 50 YEARS R/O SHANKARANAGAR

1^ST CROSS, SHANTHI NILAYA NEAR AMBUJAMMA PARK MANDYA-571 436.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.491/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA. 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 appearing for the appellant

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit filed for the relief of declaration, partition and permanent injunction and confirmation made by the First Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court is that suit schedule property is joint family and ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants and the same is in their joint possession and enjoyment as on the date of filing of the suit. It is the contention that defendant No.4 is not having any absolute right over the suit schedule property and he illegally sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 with an intention to defraud the right of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 took the contention that defendant No.4 for the family and legal necessity and in order to purchase the site, sold the suit schedule property with the consent of plaintiff and other family members. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 also took the contention that suit is bad for partial partition as contended in paragraph No.10 of the written statement. It is also contended that suit is barred by limitation.

5. The Trial Court recasted the issues whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 7, whether they are entitled for the relief of declaration and partial partition and whether they are in joint possession and sale made by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 is for family necessity. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 as ‘negative’ that suit schedule property is ancestral and joint family property and the said sale is not binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not in possession o