SRI R L HONNAPPA vs SMT GOWRAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI R L HONNAPPA
S/O R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O ERAJJANAHATTY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT 577 501.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE R. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/O HOLALKERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA CITY 577 501.
2. SMT. R.N. MANJULA @ MANJAMMA
W/O T. VENKATESHA
DIED.
3. SRI T.V. RAVI KUMAR
S/O T. VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. SRI T.V. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O T. VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
5. SRI T.V. SRINIVASA
S/O T. VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
SIGN
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
6. SRI T.V. HARISH
S/O T. VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R-3 TO R-6 ARE
RESIDENTS OF SHANTHAMMA NILAYA
HOLALKERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA CITY – 577 501.
7. SMT. V. MAHARUDRAMMA
W/O B.P. KARISIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
8. SMT. V. RAJESHWARI
W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R-7 AND 8 ARE R/O
HOLALKERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
9. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE S.B. BHUVANESH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
10. SRI S.B. RAGHU
S/O LATE S.B. BHUVANESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
11. SRI S.B. SANTHOSH
S/O LATE S.B. BHUVANESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R-9 TO R-11 ARE
R/O BURUJINAHATTY
CHITRADURGA CITY 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B S HADIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R7,
SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-6
SMT. N. SHARADHA, FOR
SMT. K.T. PREMALATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 TO R-11
VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.01.2024
R-3, R-4 TO R-6 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R-2)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT &
DECREE DTD 20.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.60/2011 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DTD 15.7.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.154/1996 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.) AND CJM, CHITRADURGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.154/1996 filed by
him against the respondents – defendants for partition and
separate possession of his alleged half share in the suit schedule
immovable properties and for other reliefs.
2. The said suit having been contested by the respondents –
defendants, the Trial court proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment and decree dated 15.07.2011 dismissing the suit of the
appellant – plaintiff who approached the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.60/2011 which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and
decree dated 20.10.2012, thereby confirming the judgment and
decree of the Trial court. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments
and decrees passed by both the Courts, appellant is before this
Court by way of the present appeal which was admitted by this
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
Court on 07.08.2024 by framing the following substantial questions
of law:
(i) Whether both the Trial court and the First Appellate Court
have committed an error in not drawing presumption regarding
registered Adoption Deed as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956?
(ii) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to entertain
the appeal for production of additional evidence?
3. Subsequently, the appellant filed I.A.2/2024 for production
of additional evidence which was allowed by this Court vide order
dated 27.06.2025 by receiving the additional documents produced
by the appellant on record and directing the Registrar (Judicial) to
record evidence of the parties on the additional documents and
submit the same before this Court. The said order dated
27.06.2025 passed by this Court reads as under:-
“ The appellant filed I.A.No.2/2024 for production of
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
In support of the application, he filed an affidavit
stating that the respondents have denied the relationship as
they have taken a plea that the appellant has not been
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
adopted by Sri. Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma. The appellant
has produced the registered adoption deed marked as Ex.P1,
and subsequently, the respondents and the appellant have
executed a registered sale deed with regard to the suit
schedule property in favour of perspective purchasers. The
sale deed was executed jointly by the appellant and the
respondents. In the registered sale deed, the appellant’s
father name is shown as Sri Nagappa and also admitted
regarding the appellant is adopted. These documents are
subsequent to filing of this appeal. It is also stated that in
order to prove that the appellant is the adopted son of Sri
Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma. The said documents are
relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute in issue.
Hence, prays to allow the application.
Though sufficient opportunity was granted to the
respondents, the respondents did not filed objections to the
application - I.A.No.2/2024.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant, and the respondents on I.A.No.2/2024.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is the adopted son of Sri. Nagappa, and Smt.
Gowramma, and registered adoption deed was executed, and
the same is marked as Ex.P1. Both the courts below did not
draw presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). He submits
that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant and the
respondents have jointly executed a registered sale deed
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
regarding the suit schedule property in favour of the
perspective purchasers. He submits that in the sale deed the
respondents admitted regarding the status of the appellant as
a son of Sri Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma, and there is also
reference about Ex.P1 in the registered sale deed. He
submits that the proposed additional document goes to the
root of the case.
To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S.
BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. & ANR VS
SHOBHA & ORS. reported in AIR 2007 SC 226 . Hence, he
submits that the application may be allowed, and the
appellant may be permitted to lead the evidence on the
additional documents.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the
adopted son of Sri Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma. Both the
courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts
that the appellant has failed to establish that he is the adopted
son of Sri Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma. He also submits
that the alleged adoption took place in 1975, and Ex.P1 is
registered in 1989. He also submits that the said document
was created by the appellant to proceed with an illegal claim.
Hence, he submits that, insofar as the proposed additional
documents are concerned, the same is required to be proved
by the appellant by leading evidence. Hence, he prays to
dispose of the application.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
The point, that arises for consideration is as
follows:
“Whether the appellant has made out a ground to
allow the application for the production of additional
evidence?”
The appellant filed a suit for partition and separate
possession, claiming that he is the adopted son of Sri
Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma and certified a copy of the
registered adoption deed was produced and marked as
Ex.P1. And also examined the persons, who attended the
adoption ceremony. Both the Courts below did not draw
presumption under Section 16 of the Act, and proceeded to
pass the impugned judgments, and recorded a finding that the
appellant had failed to prove that he is the adopted son of Sri
Nagappa and Smt. Gowramma. During the pendency of this
suit, the appellant and the respondents jointly executed a
registered sale deed dated 06.01.2023 in favour of one Sri P.
Dilip Kumar S/o Premchand, and another sale deed dated
06.01.2023 executed by the appellant and the respondents in
favour of Shri Kshethra Dharmasthala Rural Development
Project B.C.Trust (R).
From the perusal of the documents produced by the
appellant, there is a reference about the adoption, which
reads as under:
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
“WHEREAS, Sri Nagappa and Gowramma as
aforesaid had no male issues hence they have
adopted Sri Honnappa R.L the vendor No.1 (appellant
herein). The said adoption deed registered in the
office of the Sub-Register, Chitradurga, Vide: Book IV
of Volume 20 from pages 164 to 166 bearing
document No.60/1989-90 on 16.11.1987 between
R.Lakshmaiah and his wife Lakkamma and
R.Nagappa, his wife Smt. Gowramma.”
There is also reference to the filing of this suit in
O.S.No.154/1996. The said documents were executed during
the pendency of this suit. The said documents go to the root
of the case to prove regarding the adoption by Sri Nagappa
and Smt. Gowramma. This Court cannot pronounce the
judgment without considering these documents. The said
documents were not in existence during the pendency of the
suit, and the appeal before the first Appellate Court. The
appellant has made out the grounds to allow the application
I.A.No.2/2024. Accordingly, I answer the point for
consideration in affirmative.
In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
I.A.No.2/2024 is allowed.
The additional documents are taken on record.
The Registrar Judicial is directed to record the
evidence of the parties on the additional documents, and
submit the deposition to this Court.
The parties are directed to appear before the
Registrar Judicial on 05.07.2025. Learned counsel for the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
appellant is permitted to produce the certified copy of the sale
deeds on or before 03.07.2025.”
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court,
the Registrar (Judicial) recorded evidence of the parties,
subsequent to which, respondents 3 to 6 also filed I.A.No.1/2026
for production of additional evidence which was also allowed by
this Court vide order dated 03.07.2026 permitting the respondents
3 to 6 to produce additional documents and once again directing
the Registrar (Judicial) to record evidence on the said additional
documents. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) recorded
evidence on the additional documents produced by respondents 3
to 6 also.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the respondents jointly submits that though both parties have
already adduced additional evidence in relation to documents
produced by the appellant along with I.A.No.1/2024 as well as
documents produced by respondents 3 to 6 along with I.A.1/2026
as stated supra, both appellant and respondents intend to produce
additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their
respective claims. It was also submitted by both parties that they
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
also intend to file appropriate interlocutory application(s) including
application(s) for amendment of their pleadings and as such, the
impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court may be
set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the First
Appellate Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law
by reserving liberty in favour of both parties to adduce additional
oral and documentary evidence as well as to file interlocutory
application(s) including application(s) for amendment of their
pleadings which may be directed to be considered and disposed of
by the First Appellate Court in accordance with law and also
dispose of the main appeal in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and joint
submissions made by both sides on instructions from their
respective parties, though several contentions have been urged by
both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing
any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem
it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court and remit the matter
back to the First Appellate Court for reconsideration afresh and in
accordance with law.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012
passed in R.A.No.60/2011 by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate court to
reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both appellant as well as
respondents to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in
support of their respective claims.
(v) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both appellant and
respondents to file interlocutory application(s) including
application(s) for amendment of their pleadings; in the event, such
application(s) are filed by any of the parties, the First Appellate
court shall provide an opportunity to the opposite party to file
objections and dispose of the said application(s) in accordance with
law.
(vi) The Registry of this Court is hereby directed to transmit
the application I.A.1/2024 filed by the appellant along with the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59152
RSA No. 731 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010506272013
accompanying documents, the entire oral evidence recorded by the
Registrar (Judicial) in relation to the said documents, the
application I.A.No.1/2026 filed by respondents 3 to 6 along with the
accompanying documents as well as the entire oral evidence
recorded by the Registrar (Judicial) in relation to these documents
to the First Appellate Court immediately without any delay.
(vii) Parties are hereby directed to appear before the First
Appellate Court on 30.11.2026 without awaiting further notice.
(viii) The First Appellate Court is hereby directed to
reconsider the matter afresh and dispose of the appeal in
accordance with law within a period of six months from 30.11.2026 .
(ix) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept
open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the
rival contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.