- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5347 RSA No. 100880 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100880 OF 2024 (FDP-) BETWEEN: HARIJAN MAYAPPA S/O. HULIGEMMA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ULAVATTI VILLAGE, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, NOW RESIDING AT, DANAPURA VILLAGE, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARANAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O. HULIGEMMA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ULAVATTI VILLAGE, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. …RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A. NO.33/2022 DATED 24.09.2024 PASSED BY IN THE COURT THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI AND IN FDP NO.03/2017 DATED 05.11.2022, PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI AS PRAYED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5347 RSA No. 100880 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2024 passed in RA No.33 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, dismissing the appeal with costs and confirming the judgment and decree in FDP No.3 of 2017 dated 05.11.2022 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff- respondent herein has filed OS No.173 of 2014 on the file of the Trial Court, seeking partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property, which - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5347 RSA No. 100880 of 2024 came to be decreed by the Trial Court, holding that, plaintiff and defendant are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed FDP No.3 of 2017, seeking actual division of the property and in the said proceedings, Taluk Surveyor has been appointed as Court Commissioner to effectuate the division of property. The Court Commissioner has filed report stating that, the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for half share in the Block I and Block II as per the sketch annexed to the Court Commissioner’s report. The said report is accepted by the Trial Court and same was questioned by the respondent-appellant herein in RA No.33 of 2022, which came to be dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/- by the First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 24.09.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein has presented this appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5347 RSA No. 100880 of 2024 4. I have heard Sri. Sharanappa S. Koliwad, learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Sri. Sharanappa S. Koliwad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, since the plaintiff had claimed to an extent of 02 acres, 20 guntas in the Final Decree Proceeding, however, the Trial Court granted more than that, accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant has filed OS No.174 of 2014 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property, which came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2017, whereby, the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for half share each in the suit schedule property. In FDP No.3 of 2017, the Trial Court based - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5347 RSA No. 100880 of 2024 on the Court Commissioner’s report, divided the suit schedule property into two Blocks and half share each was allotted to the plaintiff and defendant and in that view of the matter, there is no error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14