- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101015 OF 2017 (PAR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. NAGARAJAPPA ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SMT. KALPANA W/O. MALLIKARJUN ARASIKERI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEGALAGERI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI. 3. KALA S/O. NAGARAJAPPA ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. RAJU S/O. NAGARAJAPPA ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: VIMALAKSHI W/O. NAGARAJAPPA ANGADI, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. S.S.P. NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN R.A.NO.51/2013 MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24/06/2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HIREKERUR IN O.S.NO.88/2011, IN TH 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 This appeal is preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017 in R.A.No.15/2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur (for short “the First Appellate Court”) modifying the shares of the parties and allowing the appeal in part against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2013 in O.S.No.88/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the wife of Nagarajappa Angadi and he has no issues through her. It is also stated that her husband-Nagarajappa contracted with another marriage with defendant No.1 illegally, and defendants 2 to 4 are the children born to defendant No.1 through her husband-Nagarajappa Angadi. It is also stated in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Nagarajappa Angadi and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.88/2011 before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 3.1. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement alleging that the Nagarajappa Angadi died on 09.10.2010 and before his death, he executed a Will dated 30.10.2006 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of the defendants and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. It is also contended in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 written statement that the plaintiff has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., against said Nagarajappa Angadi seeking maintenance and order of maintenance has been made in the said petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced 7 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and produced one document, which was marked as Ex.D1. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.06.2013 decreed the suit in part. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.51/2013 and same was resisted by the defendants. 3.3. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017 allowed the appeal in part and modified the shares of the parties by allotting 1/16th share of the plaintiff. Feeling - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. Umesh C Ainapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Srinivas B Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Sri. Umesh C Ainapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the defendant No.1 is the second wife of late Nagarajappa and defendants 2 to 4 are the children born to them. It is further contended that the plaintiff is getting maintenance in terms of the order passed by the competent court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that said Nagarajappa Angadi had executed a Will dated 30.10.2006 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court stating that the defendants have proved the Will dated 30.10.2006 said to have been executed by Nagarajappa in favour of the defendants and therefore, argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below requires to be interfered with. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Srinivas B Naik, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the plaintiff is the first wife of deceased Nagarajappa Angadi and therefore, the shares of the parties have to be modified in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa and Another Vs. Mallikarjun and Others1. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is extracted, which reads as follows: Nagarajappa Vimalakshi (1st wife) Nirmala (2nd Wife) Plaintiff Defendant No.1 Kalpana Kala Raju (Def.No.2) (Def.No.3) (Def.No.4) 1 (2023) 10 SCC 1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 8. It is not in dispute that Nagarajappa had married the plaintiff/Vimalakshi. It is also stated that there is no dispute in their wedlock. It is also to be noted that Nagarajappa had contracted another marriage with defendant No.1/Nirmala and through her, they got three children i.e., defendants 2 to 4. It is also to be noted that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of late Nagarajappa. It is the case of the appellants/defendants that the said Nagarajappa died leaving behind the Will dated 30.10.2006 (Ex.D1). Ex.D1 is the unregistered Will. Further, the defendants have failed to prove the Will. It is also to be noted that Nagarajappa is prohibited from executing Will insofar as the ancestral properties of his share is concerned in favour of the defendants. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa (supra), I am of the view that Nagarajappa and Vimalakshi (plaintiff) are entitled for ½ share each in the suit schedule properties. The defendants 2 to 4 being illegitimate children of Nagarajappa are entitled for 1/4th share each along with the plaintiff-Vimalakshi in respect of ½ share of Nagarajappa. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 judgment and decree passed by the Courts below except modifying the shares of the parties in view of the judgment in Revanasiddappa’s case (supra). In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself as the appellants herein have not made out a case for interference of this Court under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017 in R.A.No.15/2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur is partly allowed modifying the shares. iii) The judgment and decree dated 24.06.2013 in O.S.No.88/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur are partly allowed modifying the shares. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6025 RSA No. 101015 of 2017 iv) The plaintiff/Vimalakshi is entitled for 1/2 + 1/8th in the suit schedule properties. The defendants 2 to 4 are entitled for 1/8th share each in the suit schedule properties. v) With this observation of modification of shares, the interference is made in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. vi) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21