- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100071 OF 2020 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAPPA RAMAPPA INGALGI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. SMT. LAXMIBAI BASAPPA INGALGI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. 1. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA INGALGI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. 1(A) SMT. SUMITRA MAHADEV INGALGI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD WORK, 1(B) SRI. SACHIN MAHADEV INGALGI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1(C) KUMARI REKHA MAHAVEV INGALGI, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1(D) KUMARI BHARATI MAHADEV INGALGI, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, APPELLANT 1(C) AND 1(D) REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. SUMITRA MAHADEV INGALGI, APPELLANT 1(A) ALL ARE R/AT SIDDAPUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 2. KUM. SHARAWWA D/O. BASAPPA INGALGI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, INSANE REP. BY GUARDIAN, BROTHER SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA INGALGI, APPELLANT NO.1. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 AND: 1. SMT. MUTTAWWA, W/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 2. KUM. BASAWWA D/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI AGED 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 3. SRI. RAVI S/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 4. KUMAR SHRIKANT S/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 5. SRI. MAHADEV S/O. BASAPPA INGALGI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 6. KUM. SHANTAWWA D/O. BASAPPA INGALGI, AFTER MARRIAGE SHANTAWWA @ MAHANANDA SHEKAPPA ADEPPANNAVAR, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT KANKANWADI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI PASSED IN R.A.NO.71/2014 DATED 23.9.2019 AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN O.S. NO.82/2003 DATED 08.09.2014 AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by legal representatives of defendants Nos.1 and 4, challenging the Judgment and decree dated 23.09.2019 in R.A.No.71/2014 on the file of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (Sitting at Jamakhandi), dismissing the appeal and modifying the Judgment and decree dated 08.09.2014 in O.S.No.82/2003 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their ranking before the trial court. 3. The averments in the plaint are that, plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Shiddappa Ingalagi and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of said Shiddappa Ingalagi and plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 is the father of Shiddappa Ingalagi and father-in-law of plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.2, 3, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 5 and 6 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and as there was no partition in the joint family properties and further as the defendant No.1 has dissolved his marriage with his first wife – Sarojavva – mother of Shiddappa Ingalagi, and as such, the plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.82/2003 before the trial court. 4. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that the plaintiffs had filed four suits seeking similar relief which came to be dismissed for non prosecution and also stated that Misc.No.127/1999 is also filed to restore the suit which came to be dismissed on 09.12.2002 and therefore, the subsequent suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession is not maintainable and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial court, based on the pleadings on record has formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined three witnesses as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The defendants examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.D1 to D21. The trial court after considering the material on record, by Judgment and decree dated 08.09.2014, held that the plaintiffs are together entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.71/2014 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, considering the material on record, by Judgment and decree dated 23.09.2019, dismissed the appeal, consequently modified the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.82/2003. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. 6. I have heard Sri. Mruthynjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to para No.16 of the memorandum of appeal, contended that the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit Nos.30/92, 93/94, 291/98 and 83/1994. The first three suits came to be dismissed for non prosecution and thereafter, Misc.No.127/1999 was filed to restore the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 O.S.No.83/1994 which also came to be dismissed and therefore, the plaintiffs are barred from filing O.S.No.82/2003 seeking similar relief. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, it is relevant to deduce the genealogy of the parties which reads as under: Gurupadappa Appannappa Ramappa Gurupadappa Basappa Balappa Appanna Sarojawwa Laxmibai (D-4) Shiddappa Mahadev Mallappa Sharawwa Shantavva (D-2) (D-3) (D-5) (D-6) Muttawwa (P-1) Ravi Shrikant Basavva (P-3) (P-4) (P-2) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 9. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the original propositus Gurupadappa had a son Appannappa. Appannappa had two children Ramappa and Gurupadappa. Ramappa had three children – Basappa (D1), Balappa and Appanna. Basappa had two wives namely Sarojavva and Laxmibai (D4). Basappa dissolved his marriage with Sarojavva. Shiddappa is the son of Basappa through Sarojavva. Shiddappa is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the children of Basappa (D1) through his second wife Laxmibai (D4). 10. On careful examination of the genealogy of the parties would indicate that the suit schedule properties was the joint family properties of Ramappa. In that view of the matter, the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 and defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share together (share of Shiddappa) and therefore, I am of the view that the trial court having taken note of the factual aspects on record has rightly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share together in the suit schedule properties. 11. It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the earlier three suits were dismissed for non - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061 RSA No. 100071 of 2020 prosecution and therefore, the present O.S.No.82/2003 seeking similar relief is not maintainable. However, the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is relating to division of joint family properties and the same having not been denied for lis pendens and since it is a recurring cause of action, I do not find any merit in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. In view of the above observations, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18