- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100188 OF 2020 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. MALLAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA GANJIHAL AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANSANUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA GOUDAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: MUTTATTI, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SMT. HUCHHAWWA W/O. RUDRAPPAGOUDA METI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: BASARKOD, TQ: MUDDEBHIHAL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. CHANAGOUDA GOUDAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: GANGUR, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. RANGAWWA W/O. MADIVALAPPA BIRADAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: MADINAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: BIJAPUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. VAISHALI K. KALADAGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 AND: 1. LAXMIBAI W/O. MALLAPPA GANJIHAL AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: HANSNUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. MAHANTAVVA W/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: BADARADINNI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SANGANNA S/O MALLAPPA GANJIHAL AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MUTTATTI, TQ: BAGALKOT. 4. NEELAVVA D/O MALLAPPA GANJIHAL AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MUTTATTI, TQ: BAGALKOT. 5. RANGAVVA D/O MALLAPPA GANJIHAL AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MUTTATTI, TQ: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, DISMISSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2010, PASSED IN O.S. NO.2/2006 (OLD NO.130/2005) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADAMI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019 in R.A.No.40/2012 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot1 dismissing the appeal and modifying the shares of the parties in judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 in O.S.No.2/2006 (Old O.S.No.130/2005) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Badami2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Hanamappa Mallppa Ganjihal – original propositus and he had five children namely 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and therefore the defendants No.3 to 5 have no right in respect of the suit schedule properties and accordingly plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.2/2006 (Old O.S.No.130/2005) seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1 that, the defendant No.1 married the plaintiff No.1 and having four children. It is also stated that the sister of defendant No.1 married the brother of plaintiff No.1. It is also stated that, as the relationship between the two families is strained on account of the family dispute between the respective parties and therefore the defendant No.1 is residing separately as the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 was strained and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff No.1 herself has examined as PW.1 and produced 4 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4. The defendants have not examined any witnesses. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are entitled for 1/25th share each in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.40/2012 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019, dismissed the appeal, however, modified the shares and held that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are entitled for 1/15th - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 share each and defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/15th share in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 16.08.2023, formulated the following substantial question of law: “Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court erred in law in awarding a share to the plaintiffs in the suit properties despite having recorded a categorical finding that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of the deceased Hanumappa Mallappa Ganjihal, who is the father of the first defendant?” 8. I have heard Smt.Vaishali K Kadalagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.S.S.Yaligar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the modification of share by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 and as such the First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that the defendants No.3 to 5 are also coparcenaries of the ancestral properties which is the subject matter in the suit and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 12. On careful examination of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 5. It is also not in dispute that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs No.2 to 5. Defendants No.3 to 5 are the sisters of defendants No.1 and 2. In that view of the matter, taking - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma supra, all the children of Hanamappa Mallappa Ganjihal – defendants herein are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties. Since the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and therefore the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are entitled for 1/25th share each in the suit schedule properties i.e. the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are entitled for share of defendant No.1 (1/5th share of the defendant in the suit schedule properties). 13. With this modification of the shares, the appeal is disposed of holding that the substantial question of law referred to above favours the defendants. 14. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. Judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019 in R.A.No.40/2012 on the file of the Principal - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6373 RSA No. 100188 of 2020 District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot is hereby set aside. iii. Judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 in O.S.No.2/2006 (Old O.S.No.130/2005) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Badami is hereby modified holding that the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and defendant No.1, together entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34