- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200217 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. RAMKISHAN S/O MARUTIRAO AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. 2. GURUNATH S/O MARUTIRAO SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 2a. SHASHIKALA W/O GURUNATH AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2b. GUNABAI D/O GURUNATH, W/O MOHANRAO BANDGAR PATIL, AGED : 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HALAGARA, TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 2c. KHANDOBA S/O GURUNATH AGED: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2d. SUNDARABAI D/O GURUNATH W/O LATE SRISHAIL AGED: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LONI (K), TQ: INDI, DIST : VIJAYAPURA. 2e MANJUBAI D/O GURUNATH, W/O RAGHAVENDRA AGED : 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: RAMTIRTH, TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2f LAXMANRAO S/O GURUNATH AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2g MALLIKARJUN S/O GURUNATH AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. 3. ANSUBAI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 W/O KASHINATH PATIL AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHARNAMMA W/O MARUTIRAO AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. 2. RUKMINIBAI W/O SHANTAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. 3. SATYABHAMA W/O BALAJIRAO AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O: SARPOSHKINAGI, TQ. & DIST : KALABURAGI. 4. TULUJABAI D/O MARUTIRAO AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 5. SHANTABAI D/O MARUTIRAO AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI, R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI. 6. LAXMIBAI W/O HANAMANTRAO AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AMBALGI VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI. 7. INDUBAI W/O BHAVRAO HUKKE AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KASARSIRSI, TQ: OMARGA, DIST: OSMANABAD, MAHARASHTRA STATE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 AND R7; V/O DATED 19.03.2025, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OV C.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN R.A.NO.84/2016 DATED 15.04.2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS AND ORDER OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTAPUR IN F.D.P.NO.7/2011 DATED 16.06.2016 AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH AND TO PROVE THE SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANTS PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN R.A.NO.84/2016 AND MATTER BE REMANDED BACK TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTAPUR IN F.D.P.NO.7/2011 FOR FRESH ENQUIRY AND ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This Regular Second Appeal is arising from a decree in Final Decree Proceeding as well as decree passed in appeal No.84/16 arising from Final Decree Proceeding No.07/2011. 3. Appellants' contention before the Final Decree Court is that some of the properties namely Survey Nos.88, 45 and 50 of Nippani Village are the self-acquired properties of the appellants is not accepted and is rejected by the Final decree Court. 4. The appellants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.84/2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi. The First Appellate Court rejected - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 the contentions of the appellants and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that 3 properties referred to above namely Survey Nos.88, 45 and 50 of Nippani Village are the self-acquired properties of the appellants. 6. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal rejecting the contention of the appellants relating to the self- acquisition of the aforementioned properties on the premise that the very same contention was raised in the Original Suit where the appellants were defendants. The Trial Court has rejected the contention in the Original Suit and thereafter an appeal was filed in R.A.No.45/2007. The First Appellate Court raised points for consideration in the said appeal relating to the defence of self-acquisition in respect of aforementioned 3 properties and in R.A.No.45/2007, the First Appellate Court held that the properties bearing Survey Nos.88, 45 and 50 are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. 7. The First Appellate Court has also noticed that decree in R.A.No.45/2007 is confirmed in RSA No.7176/2009 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, review petition was filed seeking review of the judgment in RSA No.7176/2009. The said Revision Petition No.2544/2012 is also dismissed. 8. Thus, the Final Decree Court as well as the First Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the matter cannot be adjudicated as the question is already decided in the aforementioned Original Suit, the First Appeal as well as the Second Appeal. The First Decree Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that issue is hit by the principle of resjudicata. 9. Though, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that in earlier proceedings, these aspects were not properly considered with reference to the documents adduced by the parties, this Court is of the view that the finding on the issue having attained finality, the same cannot be adjudicated afresh in the Final Decree Proceeding. The scope of final decree is limited. The Final Decree Court is bound to draw the final decree pursuant to the preliminary - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898 RSA No. 200217 of 2017 decree. Preliminary decree is already passed holding that the aforementioned 3 properties are also joint family properties. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law would arise in the appeal. 11. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32