- 1 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100355 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. CHANNAPPA HUNSYAL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGARAL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 2. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 3. SMT. RACHAWWA W/O. VISHWANATH SHEELAVANT, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.V, NEAR PATTESALI MASJID, HOSAPET, DIST: BAGALKOT-587206. 4. GURULINGAPPA S/O. APPANNAPPA HAMMIDADDI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALLAYANAGUDI ONI, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312. 5. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. MALLIKARJUN SHEELAVANT, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. UTTUR PLOT UTTUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) - 2 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 AND: 1. SMT. YAMANAWWA W/O. BASAVAPRABHU MANGASULI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. FARM HOUSE, NEAR NALA (HALLA), KANKANAWADI, TQ: RAIBAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 2. SHANKREPPA S/O. PRAKASH SONNAD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAVALI BAZAR, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2- DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.01.2023) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.37/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL AND DECREE THE SUIT FILED BY APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2020 rendered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol in O.S.No.37/2018 wherein the plaintiffs suit seeking the relief of partition is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. The family tree furnished by the plaintiffs is as under: Genealogy Shetteppa @ Guralingappa (Dead) Mahalingawwa – wife [Dead] Irappa Appannappa Dundappa Chanappa [Dead] [Dead] [Dead] [Dead] [Died unmarried] Neelawwa Chinnawwa Kashawwa Wife (Dead) Wife (Dead) (Dead) Yamanawwa Bandawwa Wife (Deft.No.1) (Dead) (No issues) Shantawwa Mahananada Rachawwa Guralingappa Mahadevi (Plff.No.1) (Plff.No.2) (Plff.No.3) (Plff.No.4) (Plff.No.5) - 4 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 4. The counter family tree furnished by the defendants also needs to be extracted, as the core issue in the case on hand is, as to whether the propositus of the plaintiffs and the defendants family was one Gurulingappa Irappa and he had a wife by name Mahalingawwa, as claimed by the plaintiffs. The family tree furnished by the defendants is also extracted, which is as under: Gurulingappa Irappa Hammidoddi (did not own any property) Parvatevva (didi not own any property) Irappa Appannappa Dundappa Channappa Dead on 23/01/2007 dead dead issueless dead [Died unmarried] Neelawwa Chinnawwa Kashawwa Dead Wife (Dead) Dead Yamanawwa (Deft.No.1) Bandawwa (Dead no issues) Shantawwa Mahananda Rachawwa Guralingappa Mahadevi (Plff-1) (Plff-2) (Plff-3) (Plff-4) (Plff-5) 5. The plaintiffs are the members of the branch of second son Appannappa. The plaintiffs contend that they constitute undivided Hindu joint family along with the - 5 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 defendants and that schedule ‘A’ properties are the joint family ancestral properties, and there is no severance in the family by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs contend that these suit lands were originally owned by the widow of the propositus Shetteppa @ Guralingappa. According to the plaintiffs, he had a wife by name Mahalingawwa. Hence, the present suit is filed claiming half share in the suit schedule properties. 6. In the family tree, the plaintiffs contend that the branch of Dundappa and Chanappa have become extinct, as they are not left behind any legal heirs. 7. The defendants on receipt of summons tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants on the contrary disputed the propositus name and also seriously disputed that he had a wife by name Mahalingawwa. The defendants on the contrary, contend that the propositus name was not Shetteppa @ Guralingappa. The defendants claim that the propositus name was Gurulingappa s/o Irappa and he had a wife by - 6 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 name Parvatevva. Therefore, the defendants claim that the propositus Gurulingappa and Parvatevva had no landed properties. Therefore, the defendants claim that Mahalingawwa’s property cannot be the subject matter of this partition suit and the family tree furnished by the plaintiffs is misleading and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. The plaintiffs and the defendants to substantiate their respective claim let in oral and documentary evidence. 9. The defendants to counter the family tree furnished by the plaintiffs examined family member of “Helavaru” (one who maintain family tree from generation to generation) as D.W.3. The Xerox copy of the family tree furnished by D.W.3 is marked as Ex.D42. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative holding that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties. While answering issue No.3 in the affirmative, - 7 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 the trial court held that defendant No.1 has succeeded in substantiating that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by Mahalingawwa and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs are in appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and the written statement. We have independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiffs and the defendants. 12. The following point would arise for our consideration. “Whether the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that one Mahalingawwa is the widow of the propositus Gurulingappa s/o Irappa and that she owns suit lands and after her demise, the plaintiffs and the defendants are equally entitled for share, is perverse and palpably erroneous?” - 8 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 Finding on the point: 13. The plaintiffs, in the present suit, have asserted that they too are the legal heirs of one Mahalingawwa. In support of their claim, they have contended that their propositus, Gurulingappa, was also known by the alias "Shetteppa," and that he was married to a woman named Mahalingawwa. This assertion, which forms the crux of their claim, has been advanced without the backing of any substantive documentary evidence. The plaintiffs have relied solely on the uncorroborated averments made in the plaint and the oral testimony presented during the course of trial. 14. In contrast, the defendants have produced cogent and credible evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims. They have examined D.W.3, a witness who has deposed regarding the family lineage, and submitted a genealogical chart, marked as Exhibit D42, which has been maintained by D.W.3 family over generations. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the family tree furnished by - 9 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 D.W.3, along with his oral evidence, this Court finds the same to be both consistent and reliable. 15. The family tree and supporting oral testimony of D.W.3 clearly establish that the common ancestor of both the plaintiffs and the defendants was Gurulingappa, son of Irappa, and not "Shetteppa alias Gurulingappa," as claimed by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the documentary and oral evidence presented by the defendants decisively show that Gurulingappa was married to one Parvatevva, not Mahalingawwa, as alleged by the plaintiffs. 16. In order to highlight the discrepancies and lack of substantiation in the plaintiffs’ version, it is pertinent to extract a relevant portion from the cross-examination of P.W.1, which throws further light on the inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ case. “±ÉmÉÖ¥Àà @ UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ JA§ ªÀåQÛ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðj zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ GvÁgÀ zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ±ÉmÉÖ¥Àà @ UÀÄgÀ°AUÀ¥Àà ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà GvÁgÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß - 10 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è DzÀgÉ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀ¥Àà ºÉ¸Àj£À GvÁgÀ zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤¦-12(J) zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀĺÁ°AUÀªÀé PÉÆÃA ±ÉlÖ¥Àà ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ ±ÉmÉÖ¥Àà @ UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ E®è, ±ÉmÉÖ¥Àà @ UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÄÖ 90 ªÀµÀð DVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DvÀ£À ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ zÁR¯É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ±ÉmÉÖ¥Àà @ UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” 17. We have also deems it fit to take cognizance of the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 in regard to family tree maintained by D.W.3(Helavaru), as it would throw light on Ex.D42, which is the family tree furnished by D.W.3 maintained in the course of their business of maintaining family trees of various families. We deem it fit to extract paragraphs 3 and 4, which reads as under: “3. ºÀ«ÄäzÀrØ ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ°è ºÉ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ºÀ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀð £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr: £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀǪÀðdgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁj¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À«ÄäAzÀ PÁtÂPÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, ºÉ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÀvÀ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀǪÀðdgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁj¹ CzÀgÀAvÀ FgÀ¥Àà £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀÇ«ðPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀjUÉ UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà, §¸À¥Àà, CrªÉ¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ §¸À°AUÀ¥Àà JA§ £Á®ÄÌ d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, ºÀ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ «ZÁj¹ FgÀ¥Àà£À £Á®ÄÌ d£À UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ºÉ¼ÀªÀgÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà @ PÀlÖ¥Àà JAzÀÄ PÁt¹®è. ºÉ¼ÀªÀgÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß - 11 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀé JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ K£ÀÆ GvÀÛj¸ÀzÉà ¤AwgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀé ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀ¥Àà JgÀqÀÆ ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ PÀgÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £ÁªÀÅ ºÉüÀªÀjUÉ K£ÀÆ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀÄ GvÀÛj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 4. ºÉ¼ÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀªÀgÀ PÁ®zÀ°è CªÀgÉà ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¥Àæ±Éß PÉüÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà vÀ£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃazÀ ºÁUÉ GvÀÛj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CzÉà jÃw ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¥Àæ±Éß PÉüÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.” 18. A perusal of the admissions elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the defendants brings to light significant inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' case. The relevant portion of the cross-examination unequivocally establishes that one Mahalingawwa was, in fact, the wife of Shetteppa Hammidoddi. This directly contradicts the plaintiffs’ claim that Mahalingawwa was the wife of their propositus, Gurulingappa. While the plaintiffs made a feeble attempt to assert that Gurulingappa was also known by the alias "Shetteppa," such an assertion remains a mere allegation, entirely unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. 19. Moreover, the latter portion of the cross- examination reveals that the family lineages of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are duly recorded in the - 12 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 family tree maintained by D.W.3, a document that has been preserved across generations. This family tree, marked as Exhibit D42, was produced by the defendants and has been shown to be reliable and admissible in evidence. Based on the comprehensive rebuttal evidence adduced, the defendants have convincingly demonstrated that the common ancestor, or propositus, of both parties is Gurulingappa, who was married to Parvatevva and not Mahalingawwa, as alleged by the plaintiffs. 20. Consequently, it becomes evident that the plaintiffs have attempted to lay claim over the suit schedule properties by producing a fabricated or inaccurate family tree, wherein it is falsely stated that Gurulingappa was married to Mahalingawwa. This document, crucially, is not supported by any independent or corroborative documentary evidence and stands discredited. 21. Upon a holistic reassessment of the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have utterly failed - 13 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 to establish their status as legal heirs of Mahalingawwa or to prove any right of inheritance to the properties purportedly left behind by her. On the contrary, the admitted facts and records unmistakably indicate that Mahalingawwa was the wife of Shetteppa Hammidoddi, whereas the plaintiffs' propositus is Gurulingappa, who was married to Parvatevva. 22. Further, there is no material on record to show that Gurulingappa and Parvatevva owned or possessed any immovable property during their lifetime. As such, the plaintiffs’ attempt to seek partition and claim a share in the suit schedule properties through a lineage traced to Mahalingawwa is legally untenable and factually incorrect. The very foundation of their claim is flawed, and thus, the partition suit instituted by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed. 23. The trial court, in its well-reasoned judgment, has meticulously examined and appreciated both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. It has rightly declined to grant any share to the plaintiffs, having - 14 - RFA NO.100355 of 2020 found their claim to be unsubstantiated and contrary to the factual matrix established by the defendants’ rebuttal evidence. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are sound, well-founded, and based on a proper evaluation of the evidentiary record. We do not find any legal infirmity or error in the judgment under challenge. Accordingly, the point framed for determination is answered in the negative, and we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 19.06.2020 rendered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol in O.S.No.37/2018 is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh