IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1566 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. S.G. VIRUPAKSHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

S/O.LATE S.G. BASAPPA PATEL RESIDING AT SUGURU VILLAGE

HOLALUR HOBLI

SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 216. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER

G.V.MANJUNATH

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

S/O. S.G.VIRUPAKSHAPPA

RESIDING AT SUGURU VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 216.

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed

by DEVIKA M

(BY SRI. BHADRI R @ BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

AND:

KARNATAKA

1. SRI. S. GIRISH

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

S/O.S.G.BASAPPA PATEL

RESIDING AT GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE

HONNALI TALUK-577 216 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

AND ALSO

RESIDIGN AT SUGUR VILLAGE

SUGUR POST

SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 216 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.129/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.

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. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

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

3. The Trial Court granted the relief of partition and declaration that plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. The main contention of plaintiff is that suit schedule property is a joint property of plaintiff and defendant and is allotted to the joint share of plaintiff and defendant under partition deed dated 02.07.1991. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he along with defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant took the contention that it is his self aquired-property.

4. The Trial Court taking note of the material available on record and also the pleadings of the parties framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the GPA holder of the defendant got examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D27.

5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that property belongs to both the plaintiff and defendant and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 and though defendant contend that it is a self-

acquired property, the same is answered against him, particularly taking note of the admission and also the evidence available on record. In paragraph No.11, the Trial Court has taken note that from the evidence of D.W.1, it s clear that Site No.9 was allotted to the father of plaintiff and defendant which was exchanged to Site No.105 and same came to be exchanged to the suit schedule property. This shows that suit schedule property is the basic towards grant of Site No.9 and also taken note that Ex.D1 is the consent on the basis of which the khatha came to be effected in the name of defendant. As per Ex.D1 dated 05.08.1991, it is seen that plaintiff and his brothers consented for change of khatha in the name of defendant pertaining to Site No.105. Ex.P2 is the resolution as per which Site No.105 was exchanged to Site No.228/17 and mutation was effected in the name of defendant vide M.R.No.5/2001-02 dated 27.03.2002. Ex.D3 is the endorsement issued by the Grama Panchayath, Suguru and particularly taking note of all these material, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the defendant that the same is a self-acquired property cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the Trial Court granted the relief of partition and declaration declaring that th