- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2066 OF 2006 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. [SRI. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA, S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI.] [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS] 1.a) CHANDRAGOUDA S/O. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA PATIL, (SON) AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 1.b). GADIGEPPAGOUDA S/O. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 1.c). SOMANAGOUDA S/O. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS] 2.a) SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,[WIFE] AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2.b) BASANAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2.c). SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O. SHIDDABASAPPA KONDOGI, (DAUGHTER) AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BADMAGATTI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2.d). SMT. GEETA W/O. SHIDDAPPA KONDOGI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDUR, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3. [NINGANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS] 3.a). HANUMANTHAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3.b). KALLANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3.c). CHANNABASANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3.d). BAPUGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3.e). BASANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3.f). SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA TONDUR, (DAUGHTER) AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BAAD, TALUKA: SHIGGAON. 4. [SRI. SATANAGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUKA: HANGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS) 4.a). MALLAVVA W/O. SATANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4.b). NAGANAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4.c). BHARAMAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4.d). MALLANAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4.e). SMT. AKKAMMA W/O. DYAMANNA HOTANALLI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4.f). SMT. PAVITRA W/O. MAHESHAGOUDA KABBANUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIRUR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 4.g). RAMANAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 5 . SRI. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS] - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 5.a). [SMT. SHARADAVVA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI.] DECEASED BY LRS ALREADY ON RECORD 5B, 5C, 5D 5.b). SHAMBUGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,(SON) AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 5.c). SMT. ROOPA W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIRAGOD, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 5.d). SMT. REKHA W/O. NINGARAJ KALLADEVARU, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KARAJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI. 6. SRI. SHEKARAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 7. SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. MALLESHAPPA BIDARKOPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O. MUNDAGOD-581349, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. ...APPELLANTS (By SRI. M.C. BANDI & SRI. D.M. BANDI, ADVOCATES) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 AND: 1. SRI. VIRUPAXGOUDA @ VIRUPANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2. [SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI.] DECEASED BY LRS, ALREADY ON RECORD, RESPONDNET NO.3 TO 7 3. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4 SMT. SAVANTRAVVA W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 5. SMT. SHANKARAWWA W/O. VIRUPAX YALIGAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIGIHALLI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 6. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O. VEERAPPA YALIGAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIGIHALLI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 7. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O. PARWATAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 R/O. KATOOR, TALUK: MUNDAGOD-581349, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. C. CHAKALABBI & SRI. S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT, HAVERI AND AFFIRM JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.07.2003 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT, HAVERI AND AFFIRM JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.07.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HANAGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN RESPECT OF SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 7, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006 in RA No.24/2003 on the file of Court of Fast Track, Haveri (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 in OS No.66/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hanagal, (for short, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal as averred in the plaint are that, one Basanagouda was propositus of the family died on 09.05.1962 leaving behind two wives namely Channavva and Dyamavva (defendant No.8). Defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the children of deceased Basanagouda through defendant No.8. The first wife of Basanagouda – Channavva had a son namely Basanagouda, who died on 19.04.1970 leaving behind his wife (defendant No.9) and their children, defendant Nos.10 to 14 along with plaintiff. 3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that, suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit and therefore, sought for share in the suit schedule properties. It is also stated that, defendant No.1 has filed L.C.No.82/1965 before the Munsiff Court, Haveri, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 against the plaintiff’s father seeking relief of injunction which came to be dismissed on 08.07.1969 against which the defendant No.1 has preferred RA No.29/1971. In the meanwhile, father of the plaintiff - Basanagouda died on 19.04.1970 and the said appeal was disposed off and therefore it is contended that the Appellate Court without granting fair hearing to the parties disposed of the same. It is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was minor at the time of disposal of the appeal and therefore, plaintiff contended that the judgment and decree in RA No.29/1971 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has filed OS No.66/2002 and sought for share in the suit schedule properties. 4. On service of notice, the defendant No.5 entered appearance disputing the genealogy as narrated in the plaint. The defendant No.5 denied the averments as to Channavva as wife of deceased Basanagouda and also contended that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.10 to 11 were not born in wedlock between Channavva and late - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 Basanagouda and accordingly, it is the contention of the defendants that, the children of Basanagouda through defendant No.8 are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 have adopted the written statement of defendant No.5. The defendant No.10 has filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and countered the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 8. 6. The Trial Court based on pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. 7. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined four witnesses as PW1 to 4 and produced 25 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to P25. Defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to 3 and produced 18 documents and same were marked as Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA No.24/2003 before the First - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents therein. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record allowed the appeal and as such set aside the judgment and decree in OS No.66/2002. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 have preferred this RSA. 8. This Court vide order 10.04.2012 formulated the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff, Virupaxgouda @ Virupanagouda is entitled to seek partition in the property of propositus Basanagouda Patil when it was already held that his father Basanagouda was the illegitimate son of propositus Basanagouda Virupanagouda Patil in earlier proceedings? 2. Whether the Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record before deciding the legitimate right of plaintiff to seek share in the property of original propositus Basanagouda Virupanagouda Patil? 3. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in not taking into consideration the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 delay in filing the suit, when the same was specifically urged?” 9. I have heard Sri. M.C. Bandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. A. C. Chakalabbi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Sri. M. C. Bandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court erroneously and further contended that, the First Appellate Court has failed to notice that, the plaintiff has falsely claiming that, Basanagouda as his father through late Channavva and therefore it is contended that, the plaintiff, being illegitimate child of late Basanagouda and therefore, plaintiff not entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. He further contended that, the relationship between the parties is already adjudicated in RA No.29/1971 and therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 11. Per contra, Sri. A. C. Chakalabbi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 12. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below and perused the record. In order to ascertain the relationship between the parties as averred in the plaint, the genealogy at paragraph No.3 of the plaint reads as under: Basanagouda Veeranagouda Patil [Propositus] (Died on 09.05.1962) Chennavva (wife) Dyamavva (wife) (Deft. No.8) Basanagouda (Died on 19.04.1970) Mallawwa (wife) (Deft. No.8) 1. Shivanagouda 1. Shivanagouda (Deft. No.10) (Deft. No.1) 2. Virupaxagouda 2. Veeranagouda (Plaintiff) (Deft. No.2) - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 3. Shankarawwa 3. Ninganagouda (Deft No.12) (Deft. No.3) 4. Chennawwa 4.Shantanagouda (Deft. No.13) (Deft. No.4) 5. Sushilawwa 5. Shankaragouda (Deft. No.14) (Deft. No.5) 6. Savantrawwa 6. Shekaragouda (Deft. No.11) (Deft. No.6) 7. Gowrawwa (Deft. No.7) 13. Perusal of the same would indicate that, the plaintiff is son of Basanagouda, who had born in wedlock of Smt. Channavva with Basanagouda (grandfather of the plaintiff). It is also forthcoming that, defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the children of Dyamavva (defendant No.8) and late Basanagouda. In this regard, I have carefully consider the finding recorded by Trial Court in L.C.No.82/1965 (Ex.P.15) and judgment and decree in RA No.29/1971 (Ex.P.17). It is also not in dispute that, the marriage with Smt. Dyamavva (defendant No.8) with Basanagouda was held to be valid in the aforesaid proceedings. 14. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff failed to prove that, the original propositus - Basanagouda (grandfather of plaintiff) had a son Basanagouda through - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 Channavva through cogent evidence and in view of the judgment of the Court in L.C.No.82/1965 and in RA No.29/1971, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below require to be modified in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa and Another Vs. Mallikarjun and Others1. Therefore, the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and Basanagouda Patil (grandfather of the plaintiff) entitled for 1/9th share each. Since, the said Basanagouda Patil died leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 8, defendant Nos.9 to 14 and plaintiff as legal representatives, share of original propositus - Basanagaouda Patil is 1/9th share in the suit schedule property is to divided amongst the children of Channavva and Dyamavva (defendant No.8). The defendant Nos.1 to 8 are entitle for 1/9th + 1/81 = 10/81 share each. Basanagouda (father of plaintiff) is entitle for 1/81 share. Therefore, plaintiff along with defendant Nos.9 to 14 are entitle for 1/567 each in the suit schedule property. 1 (2023) 10 SCC 1 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 15. In that view of the matter, the substantial question of law framed above favours the defendant Nos.1 to 7 with modification in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa (supra) and accordingly, share of the parties is modified. 16. In the result, I pass the following ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. ii) Judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006 in RA No.24/2003 on the file of Court of Fast Track, Haveri, is allowed in part. iii) Judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 in OS No.66/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hangal, is hereby set aside by modifying the shares of the parties. iv) Defendant Nos.1 to 8 are entitled for 10/81 share each in the suit schedule properties and the grand children of - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623 RSA No. 2066 of 2006 Channavva – plaintiff, defendant Nos.9 to 14 are togetherly entitled for 1/81 share i.e., 1/567 each in the suit schedule properties. v) Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41