IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1552 OF 2022 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RADHA W/O MANJU

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

NO.13, 14^TH CROSS

ITTAMADU, V.B. BAKERY

BENGLAURU CITY-560085.

2. SMT. SHOBHA W/O GURURAJ

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

NO.107, C-BLOCK, 2^ND CROSS

RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPU MARGA

MAHADEVAPURA

MYSURU CITY-571514.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

by DEVIKA M

AND:

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

1. SRI. SRIDHARA

KARNATAKA S/O K. SWAMY

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/O JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE

MELUKOTE HOBLI

PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571431. 2. SRI. NARASIMHEGOWDA

S/O PUTTEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE)

2(a) SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O. JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571431.

3. SRI. N. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEASR RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE THE R/AT JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDVAPURA TALUK-571431.

4. SRI. N. BOREGOWDA S/O KADINIGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O HARALAHLALI NEW EXTENSION KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TAULK-571426 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;

R2(a) - SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5005/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.49/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA 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 judgment of the First Appellate Court wherein the First Appellate Court set aside the finding of the Trial Court in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is concerned and confirmed the partition in respect of other items of the suit property is concerned.

2. The very contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court that First Appellate Court committed an error in sitting aside the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of Item No.1 of the suit property is concerned when the appellants are not at all parties/executants to the sale deed dated 24.08.2006 and 19.05.2010 respectively. It is not at all necessary for the appellants to seek declaration or cancellation of the said sale deeds. On the said sole ground, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in respect of item No.1 is concerned and the same is against the principles of natural justice. Hence this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.

3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court taken note of the evidence of PW1 as well as the recitals of the document of the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 which shows that on the very same day, the father, brother and mother who have sold the property in favour of defendant No.3 have purchased the property i.e., house property bearing number 203/2004 for a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- and sale was made only to the tune of Rs.60,000/- while executing the document in terms of Ex.D2 and house was purchased more than the sale consideration. The First Appellate Court in detail discussed the same in paragraphs 22 to 26 and held that intelligently, the plaintiff has not included the property which was purchased subsequent to the sale of the property that is Item No.1 in the suit for the reason is best known to the plaintiff and hence, no ground is made out to admit this appeal.

4. Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the following substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court i