- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 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. 100843 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. YANKAPPA SORAGOVI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDNI-587121, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. RAVI S/O. YALLAPPA SORAGAVI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDNI VILLAGE-587121, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SORAGAVI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDNI VILLAGE -587121, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. RAMAPPA LINGARADDI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. AMMALJARI-587101, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. MEENAXI W/O. GANGADHAR BENAKATTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAGARAL-587113, TQ: VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR. 3. SRI. ASHOK S/O. YANKAPPA SORAGAVI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDNI-587121, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SRI. BORAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA SORAGAVI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWORK, R/O. BUDNI-587121, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2022 IN R.A.NO.27/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BILAGI IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2019 IN O.S. NO.109/2012 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT: BILAGI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, 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 This appeal is preferred by defendants 1, 4 and 5 assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 in R.A.No.27/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 in O.S.No.109/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 and JMFC, Bilagi (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit in part. 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 plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 are the children of Yankappa and Chinnavva. Parents are no more. It is stated in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, and therefore, the plaintiffs made a claim for division of the property and same was refused by the defendants, hence, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.109/2012 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 3.1. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. Defendant No.2 and 3 have not contested the matter and remained absent. It is the specific case of defendants 1, 4 and 5 that the plaintiffs are not entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. It is also contended that the father of the plaintiffs - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 had purchased the suit property bearing Survey No. 94/2 during 1960 and thereafter, the father of the plaintiff intended to sell the said property. It is also stated that the defendant No.1 was working as a bonded labour and has invested ₹10,000/- and 10 tolas of gold to perform the marriage of the plaintiff No.1 and it is also stated that the father of the plaintiffs and defendants died on 01.11.1994 and an oral partition was effected in respect of suit schedule properties wherein it is stated that the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. It is also contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have relinquished their rights pertaining to the house property bearing VPC No.33/A and therefore, the mutation has been modified and accordingly, it is the contention of the defendant No.1 that the suit requires to be dismissed. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues for its consideration. In order to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and produced 8 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 produced 12 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D12. 3.3. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit item No.1 of the suit schedule. However, it is also held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/12th share each and defendants 1 and 2 each are entitled for 5/12th share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property. The suit came to be dismissed insofar as item No.3- house property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants 1, 4 and 5 have preferred R.A.No.27/2019 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. 3.4. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.109/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1, 4 and 5 have preferred this appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 4. I have heard Sri. K.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Mallikarjunaswami B Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 5. Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below requires to be interfered with since both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights and same was incorporated in the Varadi given to the Village Accountant in respect of land property and therefore, sought for interference of this Court by resorting to MR No.H62/2001-12 dated 29.03.2012. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the land property was purchased in the name of the father and the contribution being made by defendant No.1 was not considered by both the Courts below. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. Mallikarjunaswami B Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and 2 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 7. Having taken note of the submission 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 set out as under: Yankappa Chinnavva Yallappa Padmavathi Meenaxi Ashoka (D1) (Plt-1) (Plt-2) (D2) Boravva (Wife) (D3) Ravi Suresh (D4) (D5) 8. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Yankappa and Chinnavva. Parents are no more. Taking into consideration - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 the fact that item No.1 and 2 are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, I am of the view that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights and accordingly, MR No.H62/2011-12 (Ex.P5) has been made, the said submission cannot be accepted as no registered relinquishment deed has been produced before the Courts below to substantiate the said arguments. Accordingly, I am of the view that, in the absence of registered relinquishment deed on the part of the defendants, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit item No.1 and 2 properties. Insofar as suit item No.3 property is concerned, the same has been purchased by defendant No.1 through his independent income as per Ex.D12- sale deed and therefore, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. The First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the material on record as required under Order XLI rule 31 of CPC and has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. In the result, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6023 RSA No. 100843 of 2022 the appeal fails having not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. 9. 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.: 24