- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100110 OF 2014 (DEC-) BETWEEN: SHARANAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA SULIBHAVI @ BAGALI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HONNARALLI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. PARAPPA HUGGI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ILAHAL, NOW AT HONNARALLI, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. 2. MAHANTESH S/O. YALLAPPA SULIBHAVI @ BAGALI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HONNARALLI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 03.12.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNAGUND, AT HUNAGUND IN R.A.NO.19/2013 MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., HUNAGUND IN O.S. NO.111/2010 DATED 15.04.2013 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.18 10:57:29 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2013 in R.A.No.19/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hunagund1 allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 in O.S.No.111/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunagund2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. 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 plaintiff that plaintiff and defendants are the children of Yallappa and Mallavva. It is also stated that the parents of the plaintiff and defendants died leaving behind the suit schedule properties to be succeeded by the plaintiff and defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that there is no partition in respect of the 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 joint family properties, hence the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.111/2010 before the Trial Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. After service of notice, the defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 remained absent and placed ex-parte. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/3rd share in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.30/1+2/B and plot No.97 as those properties stand in the name of the mother of the defendants – Mallavva and same was given to the defendants and accordingly 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 has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 7 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7. The defendants - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 have examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.8. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 partly decreed suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, however, rejected the claim made by the plaintiff insofar as land bearing Sy.No.30/1+2/B and plot No.97. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.19/2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.12.2013, decreed the suit in entirety and modified the judgment and decree in O.S.No.111/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. This Court by order dated 19.02.2014, formulated the following substantial questions of law: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 “1) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed a serious error in ignoring the statutory presumption available u/S 90 of the Evidence Act in regard to the due execution of the Gift Deed relied upon by defendant no.1? 2) Whether the first appellate Court has committed serious error in the material evidence placed on record and thereby come to the conclusion that acquisition of agricultural land by the first defendant by means of tenancy rights was for and on behalf of the joint family 3) Whether the first appellate Court has committed a Serious error in ignoring the material evidence and thereby judgment of the first appellate Court is perverse?” 8. I have heard Sri.Girish A Yadawad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Harish S Maigur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit insofar as land bearing Sy.No.30/1+2/B and plot No.97 situate at Honnaralli village as those properties are stridhan properties of Mallavva – mother of plaintiff and defendants and she has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 relinquished her right in favour of defendants by executing Vatani Patra – relinquishment deed and gave varadi to the revenue authorities and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the First Appellate Court and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 10. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that PW.1 made admission with regard to relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the mother of plaintiff in favour of defendants and therefore, Section 58 of the Evidence Act attracts to the facts of the case and the said aspect of the matter was brushed aside by the First Appellate Court and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though the varadi has been given as per Ex.D.8, however, it is only a revenue document which do not confer title to the defendants and therefore the First Appellate Court has rightly modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 decreed the suit in entirety and accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. 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 and perused the original records. 13. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are the children of Yallappa and Mallavva. Parents are no more leaving behind the suit schedule properties. The main contention of defendant No.1 is only with regard to two items of the properties namely land bearing Sy.No.30/1+2/B measuring 6 acres 3 guntas and another Item of the suit property - plot No.97 situate at Honnaralli village. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that the said two items belong to Smt.mallavva – mother of plaintiff and having acquired the same through stridhan. It is also contended that, said Mallavva has relinquished her right and allowed the defendants to enjoy the aforementioned two properties. In this regard, having - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 taken note of the documents at Ex.D.6 to D.8, wherein it is not in dispute that the said properties belong to Smt.Mallavva, however, the defendant No.1 has not produced any document to establish the right in respect of those two items of properties has been relinquished by his mother devoid of plaintiff and defendant No.2. 14. Admittedly, defendant No.2 has not contested the matter on merits which makes it clear that, the case of defendant No.1 cannot be believed to the fact that the defendants were putting possession in entirety by their mother – Smt.Mallavva. It is well established principle in law that the revenue documents do not confer title and therefore since it is the case of the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties and therefore the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to import Section 58 of the Evidence Act to the admission made by PW.1 cannot be accepted on the sole ground that as it is the pleading in the plaint by the plaintiff seeking - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4831 RSA No. 100110 of 2014 partition in respect of the entire suit schedule properties belonging to her parents. 15. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and First Appellate Court rightly interfered with and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.111/2010. In the result, the substantial questions of law referred to above favours the plaintiff and accordingly the appeal fails. 16. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37