- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101049 OF 2023 (DEC/PAR-) BETWEEN: MUTTAPPA IRAPPA ANNIGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE, TQ: DIST: GADAG-582102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IRAVVA W/O. RUDRAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LAKKASHKOPPA, POST: JAMMANAKATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587155. 2. YALLAPPA S/O. IRAPPA ANNIGERI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE TQ: DIST: GADAG-582102. 3. RENAVVA W/O. ISHAPPA NAVALAGUND, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE TQ: DIST: GADAG-582102. 4. BASAVARAJ S/O. YALLAPPA ANNIGERI, MINOR GUARDIAN HIS GRAND FATHER BHARAMAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAGANUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587155. …RESPONDENTS MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.25/2015 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GADAG DATED 29.03.2021 AND ALSO BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.36/2021 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GADAG DATED 26.06.2023 THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED AND THE SUIT O.S.25/2015 BE DISMISSED AND ETC. 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 defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2023 in R.A.No.36/2021 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag (for short “the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2021 in O.S.No.25/2015 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 are the children of deceased-Irappa Puradappa Annigeri. It is further averred in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 and as such, it is contended in the plaint that the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. It is also averred in the plaint that the defendant No.1 and 2, without the consent of the plaintiff, have sold the schedule properties in favour of defendant No.4 and accordingly, the plaintiff has sought for legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 3.1. After service of notice, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. Defendant No.2 to 4 remained absent and placed ex-parte. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that there was a registered partition deed dated 18.12.2013. Defendant No.1 has admitted the description of the suit schedule properties and also it is averred in the written statement that though the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties, however, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 have their share subject to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 registered partition deed dated 18.12.2013 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced three documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and have produced three documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 29.03.2021 decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred R.A.No.36/2021 before the First Appellate Court and same was contested by the plaintiff. 3.3. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 26.06.2023 dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.25/2015. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 4. I have heard Sri.Aravind D Kulakarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff has not questioned the registered partition deed dated 18.12.2013 and also not challenged the sale made in favour of defendant No.4 and therefore, both the Courts below have committed an error in granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is produced as under: Puradappa (Dead) Irappa (Dead) Yallavva (Dead) Renavva Iravva Muttappa Yallappa (D3) Plaintiff (D1) (D2) 7. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 are the children of late Irappa. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 Another child of Irappa viz., Yallavva died without leaving behind any legal heirs. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the suit schedule properties are belonging to Puradappa (father of Irappa). In that view of the matter, it is to be concluded that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the finding recorded by the Courts below, the submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as the suit filed by the plaintiff is with regard to claim her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. It is also forthcoming that the plaintiff is not a party in the registered partition deed dated 18.12.2013 and also sale deed said to have been executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.4. In that view of the matter, by following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others1, I am of the view that the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be confirmed and therefore, I do not find any acceptable ground to interfere with the impugned 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798 RSA No. 101049 of 2023 judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. In that view of the matter, the appeal fails as the appellant herein has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the result, the appeal fails. 8. In view of dismissal 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.: 29