- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100155 OF 2020 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: RACHAPPA ADOPTED FATHER MALLAPPA KULLOLI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANNAGIRI CEMENTS PVT. LTD., UTTUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA KULLOLI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: SIDRAMESHWAR NAGAR, MUDHOL. 2. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA KULLOLI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAIN ROAD, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. 3. SMT. SUNITA W/O. MAHALINGAPPA KULLOLI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MAHARAJA COLONY, MUDHOL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2019 IN O.S.NO.30/2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, IN SO FAR AS IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.123 MEASURING 15 ACRES 14 GUNTAS OF UTTURU VILLAGE AND LAND MEASURING 32 GUNTAS IN R.S.NO.123 OF UTTURU VILLAGE AND THE LAND BEARING R.S.NO.106 OF BUDNI KURDHA VILLAGES, ARE CONCERNED, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, WITH COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.30/2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol2, whereby, the said suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share in the suit schedule immovable properties bearing R.S.Nos.7, 123, 106 and CTS No.514 of Mahalingapur was partly decreed by the Trial Court, which has dismissed the suit in respect of the property bearing CTS No.55 of Mahalingapur as well as the counterclaim of the defendant No.1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Perused the material on record including the records of the Trial Court. 1Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 3. The respondent No.2, having been served with notice of the appeal, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the appeal. 4. A perusal of the material on record indicates that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant is the natural brother of respondent No.1/plaintiff and respondent No.2/defendant No.1, and that he was adopted by one Mallappa Kulloli, his adoptive father, thereby becoming separated from the family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is contended by the appellant that his adoptive father, Mallappa Kulloli, is none other than the brother of Channappa Kulloli, the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is the wife of the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against his brother Mallappa and his wife Smt.Sunita Kulloli, seeking partition and separate possession of his legitimate share in various items of the suit schedule properties. The said suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff, as stated supra. In this context, it is pertinent to note that a perusal of the memorandum of appeal and the grounds urged by the appellant indicates that he claims an independent right, title, interest and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 possession over the suit schedule properties. He contends that, since he was not a party to the suit and the impugned judgment and decree, and since the said judgment adversely affects his alleged right in the suit schedule properties, he has approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3, in support of the impugned judgment and decree, submit that the appellant has been instigated and set up by the unsuccessful defendant No.1, who has deliberately chosen to remain unrepresented and unserved in the present appeal. It is therefore contended that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Though several contentions have been urged by the appellant as well as the respondents No.1 and 3, the only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal at the instance of the appellant, who was undisputedly not a party to the suit or decree?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 8. A perusal of the material on the record indicates that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant was neither a party to the suit nor to the impugned judgment and decree. On the other hand, the memorandum of appeal and the grounds urged by the appellant, as well as the contentions urged by the respondents No.1 to 3, indicate that they have rival claims and contentions against each other. So also, the appellant claims an independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule properties. It is needless to state that, since the appellant was not a party to the suit or to the proceedings culminating the impugned judgment and decree, the same would not be binding upon him, nor would it affect his alleged right, title, interest, or possession, if any, over the suit schedule properties. 9. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in the light of the fact that the appellant, who was not a party to the suit or to the impugned judgment and decree claims an independent right, title, interest and possession, if any, over the suit schedule properties, we deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the appeal by making it clear - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 that the impugned judgment and decree shall not be binding upon the appellant, nor shall it affect his alleged right, title and interest or possession, if any, over the suit schedule properties. 10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to take recourse to such remedies as available in law by leaving/keeping open all contentions in this regard, subject to the aforesaid directions. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is hereby disposed of without interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. ii) It is made clear that the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.30/2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, would not be binding upon the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12947-DB RFA No. 100155 of 2020 appellant, nor shall it affect his alleged right, title and interest or possession, if any, over the suit schedule properties. iii) Without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to take recourse to such remedies as available in law by leaving/keeping open all contentions in this regard, subject to the aforesaid directions. iv) Pending I.A’s , if any, stands disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21