IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. D.M. RANGANATHA

S/O MALERANGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

R/AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE

MUDDANERELKERE MAJARA

I.D. HALLI HBLI

MADHUGIRI TAUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHIKKAMUDDAPPA

Digitally signed

S/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA

by DEVIKA M

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

2. LINGAMMA

KARNATAKA

W/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

SINCE DEAD BY RESPONDENT NO.2 HER LRS

OF DECEASED HAVE ALREADY RECORD BY NAMELY RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 5.

3. MALERANGAPPA

S/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

4. MUDDARANGAMMA W/O PUTTALINGAPPA D/O DASAPPA @ KERE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE MUDDANERALEKER MAJARA I.D. HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.

5. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ARASAPURA VILLAGE HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5;

SRI. B.S.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

R3 TO R5 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL 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 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.3

2. This second appeal is against the concurrent finding against defendant No.6, who is a stranger to the family and an application is filed before this Court i.e., I.A.No.1/2025 for production of additional documents.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants.

4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that already there was a partition of joint family properties about 15 years back between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and as such, there exists no joint family properties. It is also the contention that parties are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares in view of the said partition. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition.

5. The Trial Court having framed the issues considered the pleadings of both the parties and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 12 and also examined a witness as P.W.2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1, defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.2 and he got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D3 and a witness was examined as D.W.3, but he did not tender himself for cross-examination. The defendant No.2 got examined herself as D.W.4.

6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants, but not accepted the case of the defendants that there was already a partition and while considering the defence, the Trial Court in paragraph No.19 comes to the conclusion that in the name of defendant No.1 alone some of the properties were standing and some of the suit properties are standing in the joint names of defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and mode of acquisition is evidence from RTC Extracts which has already been produced and there was no partition effected between plaintiff and defendants with respect t