- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100860 OF 2016 (PAR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. DYAMAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 2. SMT. MANJAVVA W/O. NARAYAN SUNGAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 3. SMT. NEELAVVA D/O. DYAMAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 4. SRI. KALLAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 5. SMT. KARIYAVVA W/O. LAXMAN GUNJAGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MUGADKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 6. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 7. KUMARI LAXMI D/O. DYAMAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. LAXMAN SULIKATTI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: DEVIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 2. SRI. NAGAPPA W/O. YALLAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 3. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. SATAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: BASAVESWARNAGAR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 4. SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALAGHATAGI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 5. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O MOUNESH GANJIGATTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SHABARINAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020. 6. SMT. GANGAVVA D/O. YALLAPPA SUNGAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 R/O: KALAGHATAGI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 20.08.2016 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI (ITINERARY COURT OF KALGHATAGI) IN R.A.NO.102/2016 AND CONFIRMED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 04.04.2016, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS COURT, KALAGHATAGI AT KALGHATAGI IN O.S.NO.22/2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2016 passed in RA No.102 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, (Itinerary Court of Kalaghatagi) (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016 passed in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 OS No.22 of 2012 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, (for short, ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 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 original propositus-Kariyappa had two children, namely, Yellappa and Dyamappa. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of late Dyamappa and plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are the children of Dyamappa and plaintiff No.1. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the children of Yellappa. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants as the said property was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of Kariyappa-father of Yellappa and Dyamappa. It is also stated that the Kariyappa died on 12.09.1977, leaving behind the plaintiffs and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 defendants to succeed to the estate and therefore, it is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are entitled for equal share along with the defendants in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed OS No.22 of 2012, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific contention of the defendants that, the suit schedule property though granted in favour of Kariyappa, however, Yellappa was cultivating the suit schedule property and has paid kimmat in favour of suit schedule property to the Government and further contended that, Dyamappa has given a vardi to the revenue authorities that Yellappa was cultivating the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 land in question and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. 6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined plaintiff No.2 as PW1 and got marked 06 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand, defendants examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 09 documents as Exs.D1 to D9. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.102 of 2016 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 decree dated 20.08.2016 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.22 of 2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. 8. This court vide order 28.09.2022 formulated the following substantial question of law: “Whether First Appellate Court was justified in denying share to one of legal heirs of grantee contrary to Section 24 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act ?” 9. I have heard Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the suit schedule property was acquired by the Kariyappa-father of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 Dyamappa and Yellappa and therefore, after the death of Kariyappa the suit schedule property has to be devolved between sons of Kariyappa and said aspect of the matter has been ignored by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. He invited the attention of the court to Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and submitted that, as the suit schedule property has been granted to the Kariyappa and therefore, both the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property. In order to buttress his arguments learned counsel appearing for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balawwa and another Vs. Hasanabi and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 272 and judgment of this court in the case of Verupegowda and another vs. Shankaregowda and another reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1867. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 11. Sri. Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondents invited the attention of the court to admission made by PW1 as the Yellappa has remitted Rs.26,461/- as per D-entry in the revenue records, pursuant to the order passed by the Land Tribunal and further he invited the attention of the court to the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court at paragraphs 15 to 17 and argued that, the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, which was rightly rectified by the First Appellate Court and same is required to be confirmed in this appeal. Hence, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the courts below and perused the original records. In - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 order to under the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is extracted below: PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà(ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ) (¥ÉÆÃw) PÀ®èªÀå (¥ÉÆÃw) AiÀÄ®è¥Àà (¥ÉÆÃw) zÁåªÀÄ¥Àà (¥ÉÆÃw) vÀAUÀªÀé (¥ÉÆÃw) PÀ®èªÀå (1 £Éà ªÁ¢) gÉÃtÄPÁ £ÁUÀ¥Àà ±ÁAvÀªÀé PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà ¸ÁªÀPÀÌ UÀAUÀªÀé (1 ¥ÀæªÁ¢) (2 ¥ÀæªÁ¢) (3 ¥ÀæªÁ¢) (4 ¥ÀæªÁ¢) (5 ¥ÀæªÁ¢) (6 ¥ÀæªÁ¢) ªÀÄAdªÀé ¤Ã®ªÀé PÀ®è¥Àà PÀjAiÀĪÀé ¤AUÀªÀé ¯Qëöäà (2£Éà ªÁ¢) (3£Éà ªÁ¢) (4£Éà ªÁ¢) (5£Éà ªÁ¢) (6£Éà ªÁ¢) (7£Éà ªÁ¢) 12. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the original propositus-Kariyappa had two children namely, Yellappa and Dyamappa. Plaintiffs are the legal representatives Dyamappa and the defendants are the legal representatives of Yellappa. Perusal of the Exs.P2 and P3 would makes it clear that, the Land Tribunal, Kalaghatagi has granted the suit schedule property in favour of Kariyappa, (Ex.P3) pursuant to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 Form No.7, filed by Kariyappa, (Ex.P2). In that view of the matter, though PW1, in the cross-examination stated that, the Yellappa had remitted Rs.26,461/- and got entered his name in the revenue records, however, as the suit schedule property has been granted in favour of late Kariayappa and thereafter, on his demise on 30.12.1974, the suit schedule property has to be identified and declared as joint family property of both the branches of Yellappa and Dyamappa. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balavva (supra), the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property as the suit schedule property stands in the name of Kariyappa, who is the father of Yellppa and Dyamappa and same shall enure to the benefit of joint family consisting of both Yellappa and Dyamappa and therefore, First Appellate Court has committed an error in ignoring the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 well settled principles of law by this court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and erroneously, interfered with the finding recorded by the Trial Court resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, substantial question of law framed above favours the appellants/plaintiffs and hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii) Judgment and decree dated 20.08.2016 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (Itinerary Court of Kalghatagi) in RA No.102 of 2016 is hereby set aside. iii) Judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016 in OS No.22 of 2012 passed by the Civil Judge - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5468 RSA No. 100860 of 2016 and JMFC Court, Kalaghatagi, is hereby confirmed. iv) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37