- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 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. 5474 OF 2009 (SP-) BETWEEN: 1. VENKARADDI S/O. HEMARADDI MANAKAWAD, SINCE DEAD HIS LR’S. (SINCE DEAD HIS LR’S REFUSED TO CONTEST THE APPEAL. HENCE, LR’S OF THE APPEALLANT NO.1 ARRAYED AS RESPONDNET No.6(a) to 6(d) 2. BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA KANAKI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S 2(a) BHIMAPPA YALAPPA KANAKI, AGE: 89 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2(b) SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O. VENKAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. HANAMANTAPPA S/O. CHOUDAPPA SIDNAL, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. 3(a) SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. HANUMANTAPPA HULAKUND, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3(b) BHEEMARADDI S/O. HANUMAPPA SHIDNAL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 3(c) SMT. PRAVATI W/O. HEMARADDY YADALLI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BENAKATTI, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI. 3(d) SMT. PADDAVVA W/O. HANUMANT ROGI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3(e) SOMARADDY HANUMAPPA SHIDNAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. PAIRAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. ALLAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. NILAWWA W/O. NINGAPPA PATTANSHETTI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. TANGEWWA W/O. RAMAPPA LAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O. VENKAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA ARIBENCHI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 2. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. RAMAPPA @ RAMACHANDRAPPA BIDARI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BUDANUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. GOVINDAPPA CHAILAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAMDURG, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. KASTUREVVA W/O. IRAPPA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S 4(a) IRAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SATTIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4(b) MANJAVVA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA DARENNAVAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KODLIWAD, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4(c) SIVAPPA S/O. IRAPPA PATIL, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SATTIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4(d) BASAVARAJ S/O. RUDRAPPA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SATTIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. NINGAPPA SIGIHALLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S 5(a) NINGAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA SIGIHALLI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADDI-SHIVAPUR, TQ: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT RAINAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5(b) SHILPA D/O. NINGAPPA SIGIHALLI, AGE: 11 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 5(c) BASAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA SIGIHALLI, AGE: 8 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS NO.5(b) AND 5(c) MINORS REPRESENTED BY COURT GUARDIAN SRI. J.S. PATTANASHETTI ADV., SAUNDATTI 6(a) PADMAVATI W/O. VENKARADDI MANAKWAD, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6(b) SUDHA D/O. VENKARADDI MANAKWAD, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6(c) DEEPA D/O. VENKARADDI MANAKWAD, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6(d) BHARATI W/O. VENKARADDI MANAKWAD, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAINAPUR, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. L.T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a) R2, R3, r4a-r4d, R6(a-d) ARE SERVED; R5(b & c) ARE MINORS REP. BY COURT GUARDIAN) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 17/03/2006 PASSED IN OS NO.2/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) SAUNDATTI AND JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) SAUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT, MAY ALSO KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009 passed in RA No.18/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Saundatti (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2006 passed in OS No.2/1977 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Saundatti (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘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. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the original propositus- Irappa died leaving behind four children namely Basappa, Ramappa, Tammanneppa and Mahadevappa. Basappa and Ramappa effected partition - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 long back in respect of properties and therefore, they have note been arraigned as party in the suit. Tammanneppa and Mahadevappa were enjoyed the properties as joint family properties. Mahadevappa died on 04.03.1945, leaving behind his wife – plaintiff No.2 as his legal representative. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.2 adopted the plaintiff No.1 on 17.03.1976 and the Adoption Deed was registered on 29.03.1976. It is also stated that, Tammanneppa – husband of the defendant No.1 died on 17.06.1959, leaving behind the defendants as the legal representatives. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, as the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Tammanneppa and Mahadevappa and as such, the plaintiffs have given a Vardi to the revenue authorities to enter their names in the revenue records and same was opposed by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs filed OS No.2/1977 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that, the Basappa and Ramappa-sons of original propositus-Irappa, got their share and separated from the joint family. It is the specific contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff No.2 married Mahadevappa when she was minor i.e., aged about 8 or 9 years at the time of marriage and therefore, their marriage is null and void. It is also stated in the written statement that, the plaintiff No.2 was the daughter of the sister of deceased Mahadevappa. It is also the specific contention of the defendants that, the husband of the defendant No.1– Tammenappa had independent income – having business and on account of the income derived from the business, he had purchased the suit schedule property and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4.1. It is also the contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff No.1 is adopted the son of deceased Mahadevappa and accordingly, questioned adoption of plaintiff No.1. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 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 three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 31 documents as Exs.P1 to P31. On the other hand, defendants have examined two witnesses DW1 and DW2 and produced 21 documents as Exs.D1 to D21. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17.03.2006 partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff No.1 is entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.18/2006 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff No.1. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.2/1977. Being aggrieved by - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 the same, the appellants/defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. This Court vide order dated 28.09.2012 formulated the following substantial question of law. “a. Whether the Courts below having framed an issue to the effect that plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are their ancestral joint family properties and further, whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs having failed to prove the said issues, are justified in examining the case of the plaintiffs to effect that whether block Nos.171 and 262 are joint family properties? b. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the block Nos.171 and 262 are joint family properties, when the plaintiff/PW.1 in the examination-in-chief has clearly admitted to the effect that, there is a partition in the family and the block Nos.171 and 262 have fallen to the share of Tammannappa branch i.e., 1st defendant’s father?” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 9. I have heard Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Shrikant T. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 10. It is contended by Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, both the Courts below have committed an error in accepting the adoption of plaintiff No.1 and further he contended that, the suit schedule property is not the ancestral property of Tammanneppa and Mahadevappa and further Tammanneppa had purchased the suit schedule properties through his own independent income and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered in this appeal. 10.1. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, the appellants have questioned the adoption of plaintiff No.1 by the plaintiff No.2 and therefore, both the Courts below have committed an error in granting relief to the plaintiffs to have right in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 respect of half share in the suit schedule properties which requires to be set right in this appeal. 11. Per Contra, Sri. Shrikant T. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, the defendants have no locus standi to challenge the adoption of the plaintiff No.1 by the plaintiff No.2 as the defendants are the strangers and are not the adoptive or adopted families of plaintiff No.1 and accordingly, 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 record. In order to ascertain the relationship between the parties as averred in the plaint, the genealogy is set out as under: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 Irappa (Original Propositus) Basappa Ramappa Tammanneppa Mahadevappa Basawwa (Def.) Ningawwa(Pltf.No.2) 13. On careful examination of the genealogy would indicate that the original propositus-Irappa died leaving behind four sons Basappa, Ramappa, Temmanneppa (died leaving behind the defendants) and Mahadevappa (died leaving behind the plaintiffs). It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule property are the joint family properties of Tammanneppa and Mahadevappa as the remaining two brothers Basappa and Ramappa left the joint family by taking their respective shares. 15.1. It is the case of the defendants that, the suit schedule property was purchased on account of independent income of Tammanneppa. However, perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below as well as documents on record would indicate that, no acceptable evidence has been adduced to establish that Tammanneppa has purchased the suit schedule properties on account of his own earnings and therefore, the said - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants cannot be accepted. 14. Insofar as, adoption of plaintiff No.1 by the plaintiff No.2 has been assailed before the Trial Court and in this regard, issue No.4 is related to establish the adoption of plaintiff No.1 by plaintiff No.2 and same was held valid by the Trial Court on the ground that, the adoption was made on 17.03.1976, subsequently, deed of adoption was registered on 29.03.1976. It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff No.2 was widow at the time of the adoption and having independently taken decision in the matter for adoption. The evidence on record would indicate that, adoption ceremony was conducted in the house of defendant No.1 itself at Rainapur and same was established through the evidence on record which makes it clear that, the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.4 is just and proper. 15. Be that as it may be, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, the appellants herein have no locus standi in challenging - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 the adoption of plaintiff No.1 by the plaintiff No.2 since, the appellants herein are neither the adoptive parents nor the adopted parents and further in view of the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Veerabhadrayya R. Hiremath and Others Vs. Irayya A.F. Basayya Hiremath1, I am of the view that, the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the same, and the said aspect of the matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rudramma Vs. Shri. Shivamurtheppa in RFA No.100102/2015 disposed off on 08.05.2020. Therefore, contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants cannot be accepted by this Court, and the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below is to be confirmed and also taking into consideration the paragraph Nos.16 to 18 of the written statement, I am of view that, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs. 1 ILR 2006 KAR 1740 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5472 RSA No. 5474 of 2009 16. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32