- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100433 OF 2023 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: SUBHAS S/O. GUDDAPPA CHATRAD, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND RTD. EMPLOYEEE, R/O: BYDAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI NOW RESIDING AT #2 SRINIVAS APARTMENT HOSUR, HUBBALLI TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580021. ….APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. AVANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1(A) SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. PANCHAPPA HALAGERI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS. PANCHAPPA S/O. NANJAPPA HALAGERI, AGE: ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ASUNDI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI (DEAD). 1(B) NAGRAJ S/O. PANCHAPPA HALAGERI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC EMPLOYEE, R/O.GONIBASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI – 581106. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 1(C) PARAMESH S/O. PANCHAPPA HALAGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI 581115. 1(D) SMT. MANJULA W/O. DHARAMGOUDA PATIL @ HANCHINMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEAR BASAVESHWAR SCHOOL BAMMANAHALLI, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581203. 2. SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. RAMANGOUDA PATIL AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: GUMMANAHALLI TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581106. 3. SASHIKALA D/O. SHIVAPPAMAKARI AGE: ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: SOMANAHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581111. 4. YASHODARA S/O. SHIVAPPA MAKARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOMANAHALLI TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581111. 5. MAMATHA D/O. SHIVAPPA MAKARI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SOMNAHALLI TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581111. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 6. SAVITRI D/O. SHIVAPPAMAKARI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SOMNAHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581111. 7. SHAILA D/O. SHIVAPPAMAKARI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SOMNAHALLI TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581111 8. SUDHA D/O. SHIVAPPAMAKARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SOMANAHALLI TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI 581111. 9. SMT. VISHALA W/O. SHANKARAPPA HATTIKATTERA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AKKIALUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581102. 10. SMT. SAROJA W/O. SOMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI 581203. 11. SHIVAYOGI S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR SHIRUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL AND BUSINESS, R/O: TEACHERS COLONY, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581106. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 12. HASANSAB S/O. FAKKIRSAB MAIDUR, AGE: ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL& BUSINESS, R/O: MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581106. 13. MANJULA W/O. MALTESH BARKI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEAR MUNICIPALITY BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581106. 14. SRI. R. NAGARAJ S/O. NARAYANAPPA RAWWOR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MANJUNATH NAGAR, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B-D); SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11; SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED IMPLEADING APPLICANT R14; R1(A) – DEAD R2 TO R10, R12 & R13 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) -------- THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO MODIFY AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE TRAIL COURT AND THE FIRST APPELLANT COURT, IN O.S.NO.95/13 & RA 16/19 ON 12/09/2019 AND 17.02.2023 BY THE HONORABLE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., BYADGI AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., BYADAGI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant No.10 challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2023 passed in RA No.16/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), allowing the appeal in part and modify the shares of the parties as per judgment and decree dated 12.09.2019 passed in OS No.95/2013 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. 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, defendant Nos.8 to 10 and the mother of defendant Nos.2 to 7 are the children of late Guddappa and Danamma - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 (defendant No.1). It is stated in the plaint that, the second daughter of the original propositus Guddappa – Sharakka is no more and her legal representatives are defendant Nos.2 to 7. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant No.10 taking advantage of the revenue entries has sold A-3 schedule property in favour of defendant No.11 on 03.09.2011 and also the portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.12 on 23.01.2012 and thereafter, defendant No.12 sold the said property in favour of defendant No.13. Hence, the plaintiff has filed suit in OS No.95/2013 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties stating that, the plaintiff is having 1/6th share each along with the defendant Nos.7 to 10 and accordingly, sought for partition in the joint family properties. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 5. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 to 7 have not contested the matter by filing written statement. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 defendant No.10 filed detailed written statement denying the averments with regard to fact that the suit schedule property is joint family properties of children of late Guddappa and took up a specific contention that, during the pendency of the suit, suit properties have been alienated inter-se between the defendant Nos.10 to 13. It is also stated that, the defendant No.10 became owner in possession of schedule A-1 property as the plaintiff and remaining his sisters have consented to give ‘Vardi’ to Revenue Authorities as there is oral partition in the family and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The defendant No.11 filed separate written statement stating that the A-3 schedule property has been purchased for valuable consideration from defendant No.10 and the respective purchaser are in possession of suit schedule properties and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues and additional issue for its consideration. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 8. In order to establish their case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked 29 documents as Exs.P1 to P29. On the other hand, defendants have examined five witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.D1 to D22. 9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12.09.2019 decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.10 has preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.16/2019 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff and other respondents. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17.02.2023, modified the shares of the parties holding that the children of late Guddappa are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties in respect of A-1 and A-2 schedule properties and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.10 has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 10. I have heard Sri. Rajashekhar S. Avani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(B to D), Sri. Nagaraj J. Appannavar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11 and Sri. F.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.14. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff and defendant No.10 along with defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the children of Guddappa and the schedule properties were granted in favour of father of defendant No.10 – Guddappa. 11.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to Ex.P8 and contended that there was a oral partition between the children of Guddappa and also argued that the daughters have consented for entering the name of defendant No.10 in the revenue records, based on the oral partition and therefore, the defendant No.10 has sold the same in favour of defendant No.11 and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 accordingly sought for interference of this Court. He also submitted that since the oral partition has been acted upon as per ‘Vardi’ given to the Revenue Authorities, the modification of shares by the First Appellate Court is contrary to law. 12. Per contra, Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(B to D) / plaintiff argued that there is no partition in the family and the plaintiff is not a signatory to the Ex.P.8 and accordingly, sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. It is submitted by Sri. F. V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.14 that, the respondent No.14 has purchased the portion of the suit schedule properties from the defendant No.10 / appellant herein and accordingly, sought to protect the interest of bona-fiade purchasers. 14. Sri. Nagaraj J. Appannavar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.11 submitted that, the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 respondent No.11 has purchased the portion of the suit schedule properties from defendant No.10 and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 15. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is extracted below; Guddappa Danamma (wife) D1 Dyamawwa Sharakka Shantawwa Vishala Saroja Subhas (D1) (D7) (plntf.) (D8) (D9) (D10) (dead) Shashikala Yashodhar Mamata Savitri Shaila Sudha (D2) (D3) (D4) (D5) (D6) (D7) 16. Perusal of genealogy would indicate that the original propositus Guddappa and his wife Danamma had six children namely Smt. Dyamawwa (D1), Smt. Sharakka (mother of D2 to D7), Smt. Shantawwa (plaintiff), Smt. Vishala (D8), Smt. Saroja (D9) and Subhas(D10). - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 17. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the parties and the defendant No.10 has alienated the portion of the suit schedule properties i.e., schedule A-3 property in favour of defendant No.11 and the said sale deed 03.09.2011 is not binding on the plaintiff. 18. Taking into consideration the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – defendant No.10, I have carefully examined Ex.P8 where a ‘Vardi’ has been given to Revenue Authorities to enter the name of defendant No.10 however, the plaintiff has denied the same and also the said ‘Vardi’ did not contain the consent of daughters of late Guddappa. It is also to be noted that, the suit schedule properties have been granted to Guddappa as per the provisions under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and therefore, in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others1, the daughters are also entitled to equal shares along with sons and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 19. Taking into account the fact that, both the Courts below have evaluate the oral and documentary evidence on record including the document referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein as the defendant No.10 has failed to establish the oral partition said to have been made between himself and his father and in the absence of any such document, the finding recorded by both the Courts below is to be confirmed as to the fact that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and her sisters and brother. The children of late Gudddappa are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties. 20. Therefore, I do not find material irregularities or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below except, modifying the share as per the 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3404 RSA No. 100433 of 2023 judgment and decree in RA No.16/2019 and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22