- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7698 RFA No. 100067 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100067 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. TIPPAVVA W/O RAMAPPA HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. BHIMAPPA S/O RAMAPPA HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SIDDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. ANAND S/O RAMAPPA HULAKUND @ ULELGADDI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. GURUNATH S/O RAMAPPA HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. KUMARI SIDDAVVA D/O RAMAPPA HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7698 RFA No. 100067 of 2023 R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER SANKLAP S/O ANAND HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. MASTER SAMPAT S/O ANAND HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SINCE RESP. 1 AND 2 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER LAXMI W/O ANAND HULAKUND @ ULLEGADDI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. GANGAVVA W/O PARASAPPA GADADI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUKKANATTI-591 224, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.322/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7698 RFA No. 100067 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment & decree dated 29.6.2022 passed in OS No.322/2021 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak1, thereby, suit filed for partition and separate possession came to be decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming 2/21st share in the suit schedule properties on the ground that the same is ancestral properties. 4. The plaintiffs have filed Scheduled-B, Genealogy Tree, which is as follows: 1 ‘Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7698 RFA No. 100067 of 2023 Yallappa (died) Lakkavva (died) Ramappa (died) Tippavva (Def No.1) Bhimappa Siddappa Gangavva Anand Gurunath Siddavva (Def No.3) (Def No.4) (Def No.2) (Def No.5) (Def No.6) (Def No.7) Laxmi Sankalpa Sampat (Plff No.1) (Plff No.2) 5. Inspite of summons served on defendant No.2, she remained absent. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, though defendants No.1 and 3 to 7 appeared through advocate, have not filed written statement nor contested the suit. The trial Court has decreed the suit by granting 2/21st share together with both the plaintiffs. This decree is under challenge by defendant No.2 in the present appeal. 6. The trial Court upon following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineet - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7698 RFA No. 100067 of 2023 Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma2 has held that defendants No.1 to 7 are equally entitled to 1/7th share each. Defendant No.5 is the father of the plaintiffs and his 1/7th share is further divided into 3 shares. Accordingly, granted decree by granting 2/21st share together with the plaintiffs. The trial Court has not affected the share to be effected to defendants No.1 to 4 and defendant No.6 & 7. The trial Court has granted decree for partition only in the share of defendant No.5. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as no good grounds are made out to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE JTR CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18 2 AIR 2020 SC 3717