IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.819 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI C M NAGARAJ

S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

R/AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE

NANDI HOBLI

CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK

AND DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. THIMMAIAH K H, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI RAMACHANDRA

Digitally signed

S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA

by DEVIKA M

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 2. SRI M C KRISHNAPPA

S/O MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE

NANDI HOBLI,

CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK

AND DISTRICT.

3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

W/O B C BASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/O NO.265, PAPANNA COMPOUND

18^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003

6. KUMAR S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT

7. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 8. SRI CHARANKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 & 8 ARE R/AT NO.187, NEXT TO SADAMMA RAMDAS KALYANA MANTAPA OPP FCI WATER TANK KADUGODI CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 067

9. SMT. ANITHA W/O KUMAR D/O LATE M VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT CHIKKASANNE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.116/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ETC.

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 finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 6. It is also the further case of the plaintiff that registered sale deeds dated 22.04.1979 and 18.07.1994 executed by his father and defendant No.1 in favour of father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not binding on his share. It is also the contention that decree obtained in O.S.No.306/1994 dated 16.06.2009 is not binding on his share. That defendant No.1 appears and files written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are his self-acquired properties and he has purchased the same under the registered sale deeds dated 01.04.1970, 22.04.1970 and 18.07.1994.

4. The Trial Court considering both the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P12. He also executed a power of attorney in favour of one L. Umashankar, who has been examined as PW1 subsequently and marked the documents at Ex.P13 and P14 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and no documents are placed. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 as negative. However, accepted the case of defendant No.1 that he had purchased the property and comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the fact that property purchased in year 1994 was out of joint nucleus, nothing is placed on record. The Trial Court also taken note of admission on the part of witnesses particularly, the admission on the part of PW1 that the same is a self-acquired property. In paragraph 23, it is discussed that Item No.1 is self-acquired property of the Venkatarayappa. Therefore, the plaintiff himself admitted that the suit Item No.1 is self-acquired property of the sa