- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 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. 100635 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENKAPPA S/O. REVAPPA MALDINNI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: COURT CIRCLE, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. DYAMANNA S/O. REVAPPA MALDINNI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL (BLIND), R/AT: VIVEKANAND NILAYA, BASAVA NAGAR, II CROSS, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANGALA W/O. GURUDEV BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. SINDHU NAGAR, EURTI, PONDA, GOA-403401. SMT. SHANTABAI W/O. REVAPPA MALADINNI, SINCE DECEASED ALL THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. SRI. BABURAO S/O. REVAPPA MALDINNI, AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, OCC: PHOTOGRAPHER, R/AT: CHAMUNDI COMPLEX, NEAR APSARA KHOOT, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218. 3. SRI. REVINDRA @ RAVINDRA S/O. REVAPPA MALDINNI, AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 R/AT: CHAMUNDI COMPLEX, NEAWR APSARA KHOOT, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT & SRI. S.A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE PASSED BY XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, PASSED IN R.A.NO.278/2017 DATED 26.07.2019 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, PASSED IN O.S. NO.97/2012 DATED 02.11.2017 AND DECREE THE SUIT WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2019 in R.A.No.278/2017 on the file of the 12th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2017 in O.S.No.97/2012 on the file of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2019 has formulated the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in holding that defendant No.1 would be a sharer as that of son as contemplated under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act when the earlier transactions of registered partition deed and the decree of the civil court are saved by virtue of proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act? 2. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in holding that defendant No.2 would be absolute owner of the property but not limited owner of the property in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act overlooking Section 14(2) thereof? 3. Any other substantial question of law arises at the time of hearing.” 4. The appeal was listed for hearing and during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that defendant No.1 in O.S.No.97/2012 (respondent No.1 herein) has filed a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 comprehensive suit in O.S.No.268/2018 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, seeking comprehensive relief of partition in respect of all the properties of original propositus - Revappa. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, this appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.97/2012 wherein, only one suit schedule property belonging to Revappa is a subject matter and the very same suit schedule property is also subject matter in O.S.No.268/2018. 5. Therefore, recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that, the present appeal be disposed of with a direction to the parties to agitate their rights in the pending suit in O.S.No.268/2018. All the contentions of the parties are kept open and it is made clear that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.97/2012 and R.A.No.278/2017, which is impugned in the present appeal, cannot be accepted on the sole ground that, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 partial partition in respect of the joint family property is impermissible under law. 6. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts below is not binding on the parties in view of the pendency of suit in O.S.No.268/2018 wherein identical claim is made not only in respect of subject matter of the suit property in the present appeal and other joint family properties are the subject matter in the pending suit in O.S.No.268/2018. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, any opinion to be expressed in the present appeal may have bearing on the pending suit in O.S.No.268/2018. Accordingly, I am of the opinion, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, the present appeal be disposed of without adjudicating the rights of the parties in the present appeal and the parties are relegated to agitate their rights in a manner known to law in O.S.No.268/2018. 7. Hence, with these observations, the Regular Second Appeal is disposed of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 8. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration by relegating the parties to resolve their rights in O.S.No.268/2018, I am of the view that the interim order dated 15.01.2021 passed by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the appellants herein and the above interim order passed by this Court shall continue till the conclusion of the proceedings in O.S.No.268/2018. 9. Trial Court in O.S.No.268/2018 is requested to expedite the hearing taking into consideration the lis between the parties is being agitated since 2012 as reflected in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.97/2012. 10. Parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit without seeking unnecessary adjournment in the matter, which may cause delay in granting relief to the parties. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5535 RSA No. 100635 of 2019 11. It is also to be borne in mind by the parties that, the rights of the parties has to be crystallized in O.S.No.268/2018 and further the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in the present appeal shall not influence the Trial Court in disposing the pending suit in O.S.No.268/2018. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28