- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100476 OF 2015 C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100475 OF 2015 IN RSA 100476 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKAR LAXMANRAO SHINDHE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET) DHARWAD, R/BY ITS PA HOLDER VIJAY S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET) DHARWAD-580001. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LERS 1A) SMT. ARATI W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 1B) VIJAY S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 1C) VIKAS S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 1D) NANDA W/O. NARAYAN JADHAV, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET), DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 AND: 1. DURGABAI W/O. HANUMANTHRAO MANE AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET) DHARWAD-580001. KAMALABAI W/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD 2. RADHA W/O. ARAVIND MANE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. RAJASHREE W/O. ASHOK KARADE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 4. LAXMIBAI W/O. LAXMAN JADHAV AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 5. ANAND S/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, 6. BHARATI D/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 7. ARATI D/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O TADAKOD ONI, (MANGALWARPET) DHARWAD-580001. 8. SONUBAI W/O. BABURAO PAWAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O JADHAV CHAWL, BENGERI, HUBBALI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 9. PADMA W/O ARJUNRAO BHOSALE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NAVALUR, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 10. RUKMINI W/O. NETAJIRAO CHAVAN AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O TADAKOD ONI, DHARWAD. 11. LALITABAI W/O. LAXMANRAO BILLE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KURAPALIES COMPOUND, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 NEAR KCD, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 12. SHARADA W/O. ANANDAPPA SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 13. LAXMIBAI W/O. ANANDAPPA SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE R/O. TADAKOD ONI, (MANGALWAR PET), DHARWAD …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.61/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.06.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN OS NO.552/2008. IN RSA 100475 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKAR LAXMANRAO SHINDHE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET) DHARWAD, R/BY ITS PA HOLDER VIJAY S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET) DHARWAD-580001. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LERS 1A) SMT. ARATI W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 1B) VIJAY S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 1C) VIKAS S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 1D) NANDA W/O. NARAYAN JADHAV, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. TADAKOD ONI (MANGALWARPET), DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: KAMALABI W/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 1. RADHA W/O. ARAVIND MANE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. RAJASHREE W/O. ASHOK KARADE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 3. LAXMIBAI W/O. LAXMAN JADHAV AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4. ANAND S/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, 5. RAJU S/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, 6. JAYASHRI W/O. VIJAYRAO GAYAKWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 7. SHARADA W/O. ANANDAPPA SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 8. LAXMIBAI W/O. ANANDAPPA SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. TADAKOD ONI, (MANGALWAR PET), DHARWAD …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.100/2010 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.345/1996 AND CONSEQUENTLY DECREE THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR. IN THESE APPEALS ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CAV JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are preferred by Sri.Shankar Laxmanrao Shindhe, wherein in RSA No.100475/2015, Appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 passed in R.A.No.100/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.345/1996 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 2. RSA No.100476/2015 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 passed in R.A.No.61/2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2012 passed in O.S.No.552/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 4. In RSA No.100475/2015, it is the case of the plaintiff that, the property bearing CTS No.2518/M was originally belonged to one Smt.Renavva wife of Shankarappa Shinde. The said Revavva had two children namely, Anandappa and Laxmanrao. Anandappa had eight daughters and Laxmanrao had three sons. It is pleaded in the plaint that, Anandappa and his wife Shantabai had never taken care of welfare of Smt.Renavva and as such, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 the said Renavva, had affection towards her grandson- Shankar Shinde (plaintiff). Renavva had executed registered Will dated 21.05.1963 in favour of plaintiff. It is also stated that Anandappa (father of defendants) had filed L.C.No.40/1965 seeking relief of declaration and possession, based on the Gift Deed dated 15.12.1911 said to have been executed by Smt.Renavva in favour of Anandappa and the said Gift Deed was rejected in L.C.No.40/1965. It is also stated in the plaint that Anandappa died leaving behind his daughters and as such, the defendant No.1 -Kamalabai was in a pathetic condition and as such, the plaintiff on humanitarian consideration, allowed the defendant No.1 to stay in a portion of the suit property as a licensee. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 also stayed with their sister – defendant No.1 in the portion of the property. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendants were harassing the plaintiff and his family members and as such, plaintiff caused legal notice dated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 16.03.1995 to the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, however, same was not replied by the defendants and as such, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.345/1996 seeking relief of possession of the suit property. 6. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that Smt.Renavva was owner of the suit property. It is stated that, health of Smt.Renavva was not good and was not in a position to execute the Will and also the said Renavva had executed Gift Deed in favour of Anandappa. It is also stated in the written statement that, in L.C.No.40/1965, the Court has no occasion to decide the legality of the Gift Deed and thereafter, as per the Gift Deed, Anandappa became the owner of the property in question. It is also stated by the defendants that the defendants also become owner by adverse possession and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. 8. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 29 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.29. On the other hand, defendants have examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and produced 21 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.21. Court witness was examined as CW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.C.1 and C.2. 9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.100/2010 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 by the Trial Court in O.S.No.345/1996. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed RSA No.100475 of 2015. 10. In RSA No.100476/2015, it is the case of the plaintiffs that, the property bearing CTS No.2518/M was originally belonged to one Smt.Renavva wife of Shankarappa Shinde. The said Revavva had two children namely, Anandappa and Laxmanrao. Anandappa had eight daughters (plaintiffs) and Laxmanrao had three sons. Defendant is the son of Laxmanrao. The said Renavva had acquired the suit schedule property from her sister-in-law- Smt.Narasavva Pawar, through Will. Parents of the plaintiffs died leaving behind the plaintiffs to succeed to the estate of deceased Anandappa. It is also stated in the plaint that, Anandappa (father of plaintiffs) had filed L.C.No.40/1965 seeking relief of declaration and possession against Laxmanrao (father of the defendant) based on the Gift Deed dated 15.12.1911 which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed O.S.No.540/1993 against the defendants, which came to be dismissed by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 judgment and decree dated 28.09.1999. Thereafter, R.A.No.189/1999 was preferred by the plaintiff which was re-numbered as R.A.No.192/2003, which came to be dismissed. The defendant also filed O.S.No.345/1995 against the plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit property based on registered Will dated 21.05.1963 and the said Will was not proved and pleaded that, same is not binding on the plaintiffs. 11. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit property is joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants, hence, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.552/2008 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property. 12. After service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant that Smt.Renavva was owner of the suit property and has executed registered Will dated - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 21.05.1963 in favour of the defendant and as such, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 13. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. 14. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.22. On the other hand, defendants have examined five witnesses as DW.1 to DW.5 and produced 36 documents and same were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.36. 15. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 22.06.2012 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.61/2012 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the facts on record, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 by its judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.552/2008. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed RSA No.100476 of 2015. 16. This Court vide order dated 11.01.2023, has framed the following substantial questions of law: “In RSA No.100476/2015 Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in considering the suit property to be the joint family property merely because in the will dated 21.05.1963 executed by Smt. Renavva in favour of the appellant resulted in exclusion of the respondents’ share in the property. In RSA No.100475/2015 Whether the Trial court and the First Appellant Court were justified in dismissing the suit despite the plaintiff proving the Will in accordance with the provisions of Sections 69 and 70 of the Evidence Act merely on the purported ground of suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of Will.” - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 17. I have heard Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.S.B.Malligawad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 18. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have proved Will as required under Sections 59 and 63 of Indian Succession Act and further the Will in question is a registered document and therefore the finding recorded by the Court below that the plaintiff has not proved the due execution of the Will is incorrect and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 19. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff has examined the Sub- Registrar, who is the competent authority to give evidence in respect of proof of execution of the Will and therefore the burden is on the defendants to disprove the execution of Will and the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Appellate Court. He also submitted that the defendants have not proved that the suit property has - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 been gifted by the Smt.Renavva in favour of the father of the defendants and same is evident in the judgment and decree in L.C.No.40/1965 and the said aspect has been ignored by both the Courts below. 20. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the registered Will is dated 21.05.1963 and as the said document is more than 30 years old, which shall carry the presumptive value of its contents and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 21. Sri.S.B.Malligawad, learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the Courts below in RSA No.100475/2015 appreciated the entire material on record and arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the due execution of the Will so also the plaintiff has not removed the suspicious circumstances as raised by the defendants and therefore it is argued that the appeals deserve to be dismissed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 22. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the original records. 23. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Courts below that parties are closely related to each other. The genealogy of the parties is set out as under: Shankarappa Shindhe Smt. Renavva (Wife) (dead 25-1-1964) Anandappa (Dead 15-7-1970) Laxman Rao (dead -1993) Smt. Shantabai (Dead 14-9-1979) Leelabai (wife) (Dead 2014) 1. Smt. Durgavva Shankar (son) (dead 3-8-2016) 2. Smt. Kamalabai 3. Smt. Sonuba Arathi Shankar Shinde (wife) 4. Smt. Padma 5. Smt. Rukmini Vijaya (son) vikas (son) Nanda (daughter) 6. Smt. Lalita 7. Smt. Sharada 8. Smt. Laxmi 24. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the original propositus Shankarappa Shinde and Renavva had two children namely Anandappa (father of plaintiffs in O.S.No.552/2008) and Laxmanrao (father of the plaintiff in O.S.No.345/1996). It is the case of the parties that Smt.Renavva acquired the suit schedule property from her - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 brother’s wife – Narasavva. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.345/1996 that the said Renavva had executed registered Will dated 21.05.1963 in favour of the plaintiff – Shankar. It is the case of the defendants in O.S.No.345/1996 that the suit property was gifted by Smt.Renavva as per registered Gift dated 15.12.1911. It is to be noted that if the plaintiff in O.S.NO.345/1996 succeeds in the appeal that the plaintiff has proved the due execution of the registered Will dated 21.05.1963, (Ex.P.2) in O.S.No.345/1996, the plaintiff will succeed in the dispute. On the other hand, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.552/2008 proves that the subject matter of the suit was gifted to their father as per the registered Gift Deed dated 15.12.1911, the said plaintiff will get the share in the suit schedule property. 25. It is not in dispute that the father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.552/2008 i.e. Anandappa had filed L.C.No.40/1965 against Laxmanrao (father of defendant in O.S.No.552/2008) seeking declaration of title based on the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 Gift Deed dated 15.12.1911 and the said suit came to be dismissed and thereafter the plaintiffs in O.S.No.552/2008 have filed O.S.No.540/1993 against the defendant in O.S.No.552/2008 and the said suit also came to be dismissed and same was confirmed in R.A.No.189/1999 (renumbered as R.A.No.192/2003) before the Principal District Judge, Dharwad. 26. In that view of the matter, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Courts below with regard to ascertaining whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.345/1995 proves that he had acquired the suit property based on registered Will dated 21.05.1963. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses. Plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and also he is the legatee under the Will. It is well established principle in law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B. N. Thimmajamma & Others reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 down guidelines to prove the due execution of the Will by the propounder of the Will. 27. It is not in dispute that the Will deed dated 21.05.1963 (Ex.P.2) was signed by two witnesses namely Ramachandra Amrutrao Gatage and Y.Dodekar. Ex.P.2 was written by one Traimbak Naik. It is the deposition of PW.2 (mother of PW.1) that one attesting witness was Ramachandra Gatage however they were not aware about the second witness. It is to be noted that PW.2 was also present at the time of execution of the registered Will as deposed by PW.1. The PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that one of the witnesses- Ramachandra Gatage is no more, however, the propounder of the Will – plaintiff in O.S.No.345/1996 has not proved the Will by examining the children of the said witness – Ramachandra Gatage, with regard to prove the signature on the Will in question. 28. It is also to be noted that mere registration of the Will is of no consequence unless the Will is duly proved in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has not produced any material except making oral deposition that one of the witnesses Ramachandra Gatage died. Taking into account the finding recorded by the Trial Court at para nos.35 to 46, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff in O.SNo.345/1996 has not proved due execution of the Will said to have been propounded by the plaintiff in O.S.No.345/1996. 29. Even though learned counsel for the appellants argued that no reasons have been assigned in the Will excluding the legal heir and the said argument cannot be accepted on the sole ground that the testamentary disposition of the property is an exception to succession of the property by the legal heirs. In that view of the matter, as the CW.1 – Sub-Registrar is not a competent witness to depose about the due execution of the registration of a Will, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit in O.S.No.345/1996 and same was confirmed by the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 Appellate Court in R.A.No.100/2010 and therefore, RSA 100475/2015 is liable to be dismissed. 30. The substantial question of law framed above favours the plaintiffs in O.S.No.552/2008 as the suit schedule property is belonging to the grandmother of plaintiffs and defendants respectively and therefore both the children of Smt.Renavva – Anandappa and Laxmanrao are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property and therefore the Trial Court in O.S.No.552/2008 has committed an error in dismissing the suit and same was rectified by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.61/2012 holding that the plaintiffs is together entitled for half share in the suit schedule property and remaining half share shall be succeeded by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.345/1996. Accordingly, the substantial question of law favours the respondents herein. 31. Hence I pass the following: - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 ORDER i. Appeals are dismissed. ii. Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 passed in R.A.No.100/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.345/1996 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad, is hereby confirmed. iii. Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 passed in R.A.No.61/2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2012 passed in O.S.No.552/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad, is hereby confirmed. iv. O.S.No.345/1996 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad is hereby dismissed. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3939 RSA No. 100476 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 100475 of 2015 v. O.S.No.552/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad is hereby decreed holding that the plaintiffs together are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property and defendant is entitled for remaining half share in the suit schedule property. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB/sh CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29