- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7717 RSA No. 100034 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100034 OF 2022 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: SMT. MOHINI KOM. MASTI NAIK, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O: GANAPANAMANE BELKE VILLAGE, BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJUNATH S/O. SUKRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O: PUSHPANJALI ROAD, MANKULI SUSGADI VILLAGE, BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 2. SMT. GOURI KOM MADEV NAIK, AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O: CHITRAPURA SHIRALI VILLAGE BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 3. SMT. MASTAMMA KOM MANJUNATH NAIK, AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O: BANDIGADI, KOPPA TALUKA DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 126. 4. SMT. SUSHEELA KOM SANTOSH NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O: PUSHPANJALI ROAD, MANKULI, SUSGADI VILLAGE, BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 5. SMT. SAVITA @ SAVITRI KOM. SOMASHEKAR NAIK, AGE: 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7717 RSA No. 100034 of 2022 R/O: ABBIHITLU, BELKE VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 6. VENKATES H S/O. SUKRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O: PUSHPANJALI ROAD, MANKULI SUSGADI VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 7. SURESH S/O. SUKRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: PUSHPANJALI ROAD, MANKULI SUSGADI VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 8. SMT. NAGAMMA KOM. RAJU NAIK, AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O: PUSHPANJALI ROAD, MANKULI SUSGADI VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. 9. GOVINDRAJ @ GOVINDRAY S/O. SHRINIVAS KAMATH, AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O: VEER VITTAL ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 320. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHATKAL IN R.A.NO.36/2019 AS PARTLY ALLOWED APPEAL AS INSOFAR AS THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT NOS.1 TO 8 ARE ENTITLED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION OF 1/9TH SHARE EACH IN THE SUIT A, B AND C SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND AT THE TIME OF FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE SALE DEED DATED 16.04.2005 IS BINDING ON ITS EXECUTANTS, THE SUIT A SCHEDULE PROPERTY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SALE DEED AS FOR AS POSSIBLE SHALL BE ALLOTTED TO THE DEFENDANT NO.1 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANT NO.9 BASED ON THE SALE DEED AND CONFIRM JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2019 IN O.S.NO.66/2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BHATKAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7717 RSA No. 100034 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that, though the First Appellate Court has held that the deed of sale executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.9 is binding only to the extent of his 1/9th share, however in the operative portion it has not clarified the same. 2. On hearing the matter, this Court pointed out the reasoning assigned and conclusion arrived at First Appellate Court at paragraph No.18 of its judgment wherein, the First Appellate Court has explicitly held that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.9 is binding only to the extent of his share and not beyond. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff has already - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7717 RSA No. 100034 of 2022 initiated final decree proceedings and he will proceed with the same in accordance with law, as such seeks to withdraw this appeal with liberty to seek clarification if need be. 4. Submission is taken on record. 5. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek clarification, if any, in accordance with law as and when the occasion arises. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35