- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100425 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. ERAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA DYAVAKKALAVARA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 116. 2. SOMMANNA S/O. SHIDDAPPA DYAVAKKALAVARA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 116. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATILA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 116. 2. SMT. SUSHEELAVVA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA SIDDAGERI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YADIGOD, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 110. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 3. SMT. BASAVENNAVVA W/O. GADIGEPPA KYATANNAVAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YADIGOD, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 116. 4. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATILA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SORATUR, TQ: HONNALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE - 577 217. NOW R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 116. 5. SMT. GIRIJAVVA W/O. SHIDDLINGAPPA BENAKANAGOUDA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI,, DIST: HAVERI – 581 106 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT HIREKERUR IN RA NO.14/2020 DATED 30.10.2021. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR IN OS NO.231/2014 DATED 31.01.2020 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE SUIT FF THE PLAINTIFF AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is by defendants No.1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.231/2014 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (Trial Court) by which the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff who is respondent No.1 herein granting relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties declaring that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are entitled for 1/7th share each over Item No.5 and 6 of suit schedule properties; plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 6 are held entitled for 1/21th share each in Item No.1 to 4 and 7 of suit schedule properties and defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for 8/21th share each over Item No.1 to 4 and 7 of suit schedule properties. 2. Being aggrieved defendants No.1 and 2 preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.14/2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (First Appellate Court). By judgment and decree dated 30.10.2021 the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 said appeal came to be rejected modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court awarding 1/7th equal share in all the suit properties to plaintiffs and defendants. Being aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 are before this Court. 3. Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 being the children of one Shiddappa Dyavakkalavara and Neelamma is not in dispute. Suit schedule properties being the joint family properties is also not in dispute. The defendant No.1 had contended that Item No.5 and 6 of the suit properties were relinquished in his favour by his father by way of entries in the mutation register. Item No.7 of the suit properties was claimed to be the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. 4. The Trial Court taking note of the aforesaid contentions, has held that the defendants No.1 and 2 failed to prove and establish their claim seeking exclusion of Item No.5, 6 and 7 of the suit schedule properties and accordingly taking into consideration the law that prevailed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 as on that date i.e. 31.01.2020 awarded shares as noted above to the plaintiff and defendants. However, in the appeal filed by the defendants No.1 and 2, the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court taking into consideration the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court awarding 1/7th equal share to all the parties. Being aggrieved the present appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought not to have granted any share to the appellants/daughters in Item No.5, 6 and 7 of the suit schedule properties as the same were the separate and absolute properties of defendants No.1 and 2. He submits that the relinquishment/release of Item No.5 and 6 of suit properties made by the father of the parties in favour of defendant No.1 is reflected in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 mutation entries as such the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and Item No.7 of suit properties was the self-acquired property of the defendant No.2 which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, he submits non- consideration of the pleading/evidence by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has given raise to substantial question of law. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. As already noted above, the relationship between the parties and suit schedule properties being the joint family properties is not in dispute. The only contention urged by the defendant No.1 is that Item No.5 and 6 of suit properties had been relinquished by his father Shiddappa Dyavakkalavara. However, relinquishment is not made in the manner known to law by executing and registering a deed of conveyance as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. As such, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 the said claim of defendant No.1 in respect of the said Items of the suit properties based on an oral and unregistered relinquishment cannot be countenanced. 8. Similarly though defendant No.2 has claimed that Item No.7 of the suit schedule properties is the self- acquired property purchased from his own efforts, no evidence has been brought on record. The First Appellate Court at para No.25 of its judgment has taken note of the fact that the father of the parties was running business of Agro Traders, the name of which changed from Basaveshwara Agro Traders to Girish Agro Traders and thereafter to Samruddi Agro Agencies. That the defendant No.2 had obtained overdraft facility against the security of the Item No.5 of the suit schedule property. That since the said Agro business was originally being run by the father of the parties, the First Appellate Court has found that defendant No.2 did not had any independent income to purchase Item No.7 of the suit schedule property. As such, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion of all the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8034 RSA No. 100425 of 2022 suit properties being joint family properties. These findings are based on the facts and in the absence of any perversity being pointed out, no interference can be shown. 9. In that view of the matter, no error or irregularity can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law would therefore arise for consideration. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Pending I.A. stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49