IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SMT BHAGYA B.G.

W/O SOMASHEKARA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/O KEREKOPPA BHEMMANAKONE

SAGAR TALUK - 577401

2. SMT BHAVANI B G

W/O SHEKARA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

R/O MELINABESAGE

JAYANAGAR

HOSANAGARA TALUK - 577401

Digitally signed

by DEVIKA M …APPELLANTS

Location: HIGH

(BY SRI SAMEER S N, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF

KARNATAKA AND:

1. SMT. TULSAMMA

W/O GUTHYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 72 YEAS

R/O KEREKOPPA VILLAGE

BHIMANAKOTE POST

SAGAR TALUK – 577401

2. SATISH KUMAR C

S/O CHANDRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

AUTO DRIVER R/O B K ROAD SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577401 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A. NO.10015/2023 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR 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 appellants.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit filed for the relief of partition holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the fact that properties are the joint family properties and also other reason assigned is that suit for partial partition is not maintainable and hence, the matter requires reconsideration.

4. The counsel appearing for the appellant also would vehemently contend that the reason given by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court is against the material on record and both the Courts committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that not proved the fact that the properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and erroneously comes to the conclusion that suit for partial partition is not maintainable.

5. Having perused the material available on record as well as the reason assigned by the Trial Court, it discloses that when the suit is filed for the relief of partition, it is the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the properties which have been disclosed in the schedule are the ancestral properties and in order to prove the said fact, the plaintiffs have not produced any material on record. Apart from that the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that suit is not maintainable when the relief is sought for partial partition since, law is settled that suit for partial partition is not maintainable. In the absence of any material on record, the question of admitting the second appeal and framing of substantive questions of law does not arise. Hence, it is not a case for invoking Section 100 of CPC.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH)

JUDGE SN