- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.398 OF 2010 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: T G MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE T P GANGADHARAPPA AGRICULTURIST, R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D C JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. T.G. GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O LATE T P GANGADHARAPPA, R/O PL.D. BANK, NEAR DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 2. SMT. VEERAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O GOWDARA REVANASIDDAPPA, R/O HASANDI, HIRENALLUR HOBLI, KADUR TQ., CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 548 SINCE DECEASED BY LRs R2(a) TO 2(d) Page No.1 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 09.01.2026 Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 2(a). 2(b). 2(c). 2(d). SRI. NIJALINGAPPA S/O LATE GOWDARA REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE GOWDARA REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SRI. ESHWARAPPA S/O LATE GOWDARA REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE GOWDARA REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE R/O ASANDI AT POST CHOWLAHIRIYUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK – 577 548 CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O LATE T.P. GANGADHARAPPA, R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 SINCE DECEASED BY LRs R1, R4 TO R10 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ORDER DATED 27.06.2014 (R3 DELETED) 4. SRI. T.G. MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE T.P.GANGADHARAPPA R/O POOJA NILAYA, H.NO.3992/3, NEAR M.E.S CONVENT, ANJANEYA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE – 577 002 5. SRI. T.G. PURADAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE T.P GANGADHARAPPA R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 09.01.2026 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 5(a). SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 SINCE DECEASED BY LRs R5(a) SMT. HEMAVATHI S.B. W/O LATE T.G.PURADAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O BUKKAMABUDHI VILLAGE & POST SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK – 577 548 CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT 6. SMT P.G. MADAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O T MALLAPPA, R/O MELANAHALLI, HIRENALLUR HOBLI, KADUR TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548. 7. SMT. T.B. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SHANKAR S BANAKAR R/O LINGAPURA VILLAGE, HONNALI TQ. SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 201 SINCE DECEASED REP BY HER LRs 7(a). SHANKAR BANAKAR (HUSBAND), S/O LATE SHIVAPPA BANAKAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NAGAVANDA POST, HEREKERURU TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. 7(b). SMT. GEETHA S. BANAKAR, W/O SANDEEP. K.B. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O 20TH CROSS, CHENNEKESHAVA NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 7(c). SMT. LATHA, W/O AMOGH R.G., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT BHAVANI NAGAR,NO.55, 1ST STAGE, 7TH MAIN, G FLOOR, RAILWAY MEN’S LAYOUT, Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 09.01.2026 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 OPP. JAYANTHA CONVENTION HALL, JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU – 560 056. (NOTE 7(a) TO 7 (c) BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER ORDER OF COURT DATED 26.11.2024) 8. SMT. T.G. KAMALA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O SHANKRAPPA, R/O V.P.EXTENSION, OPP WELFARE SCHOOL, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA – 577 501 9. SMT. T.G. MANGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O DEVARAJ, C/O T G MALLEGOWDA R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 10. SMT. T.G. SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE T G GANGADHARAPPA R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 11. SMT. MUTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O LATE T G GANGADHARAPPA R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 SINCE DECEASED R12, R13, R14 & R15 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD TREATED AS LRs OF R11 Page No.4 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 09.01.2026 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 12. SMT. T.G. RUDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE LINGARAJU R/O KALLESHWARA NILAYA RAILWAY STATION ROAD, BIRUR TOWN, BIRUR, KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548 13. SMT. T.G. NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O H R VISHWANATH, C/O P RAGHAVAREDDY DOOR NO.76, 12TH C MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010 14. SMT. T.G. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O MALLESHAPPA, R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 15. SMT. T.G. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O T P GANGADHARAPPA, R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 16. SRI. C.R. RAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O CHENNABASAIAH, R/O BUKKAMBUDHI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TQ. CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 145 17. SRI. N.S. CHANDRESHEKARA NARAYANAPURA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, R/O EDITOR (GELAYA DAILY EVENING PAPER) KOTE, CHICKMAGALUR - 577 101 Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 09.01.2026 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 18. SMT. C.R. RATHNAMMA MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O T G MALLEGOWDA, R/O POOJA NILAYA, HOUSE NO.3992/3, NEAR MES CONVENT, ANJANEYA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE – 577 002 …RESPONDENTS (NOTE: AS PER ORDER DATED 03.04.2012 ON MEMO FILED BY APPELLANT CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED, THE RESPONDENTS NO.12, 13, 14 AND 15 AND APPELLANT WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.11) (BY SRI. M S RAGHUNANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. R.SURESH & M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATES FOR R4, R5(a), R17 & R18; R6, R7(1), R7(2), R7(3), R8, R9, R10, R16 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.04.2012, R12, R13, R14 & R15 AR TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R11; SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R15; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2014 R1, R4-R10 ARE THE LRs OF DECEASED R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/1998 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE O.S.NO.81/1998 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH COST; b) PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR DIRECTION INCLUDING THE ORDER OF REMAND, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS IT FIT TO PASSED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF Page No.6 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 09.01.2026 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is filed by the defendant No.11 under Section 96 of the CPC, 1908 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009 in O.S.No.81/1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Principal JMFC at Tarikere, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition is partly decreed granting 1/16th share in suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. 2. The present appeal is restricted only against the finding of the trial Court on additional issue No.1 where under, the defendant No.11 was called upon to prove that subsequent to filing of the suit, in a Panchayat convened on 03.01.2004, before the Panchayathdars and Sri.Gurupanditharadhya Swamiji at Sanehallihalli Mutt wherein, the property shown in para No.20 of written statement i.e., item Nos.1 to 5, were given to his share. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present appeal is as follows:- As the relationship between the parties to the suit are not disputed, much deliberation on the relationship is unwarranted. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties along with other reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 15 are the members of undivided Hindu Joint Family. The properties at schedule 'A' and 'B' are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The father of the plaintiff T.P.Gangadharappa S/o Purudappa died intestate on 13.06.1994, leaving behind him, the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs in the joint family. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.11, subsequent to death of their father was acting as a Manager of the joint family. As he was not taking care of interest of all the members of the joint family and had started dealing with the properties, in a manner causing prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff, the plaintiff raised - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 demand seeking partition in the suit schedule properties during the first week of July, 1998 followed by issuance of legal notice dated 17.08.1998. As the demand was not acceded to by the defendant No.11, the plaintiff filed suit seeking partition in respect of 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. 4. In response to the suit summons, defendants appeared through their respective counsel. Defendant Nos.3, 8, 11, 16 and 17 filed their separate written statement. Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 6 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.9, 10, 12 to 15 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.11. Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 7 though served being absent were placed exparte. 5. In view of restriction of this appeal only in respect of finding of the trial Court on the additional issue No.1, the deliberations on the written statement filed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 other defendants is not necessary to decide the present appeal. 6. The defendant No.11 subsequently to written statement, filed an application to amend the written statement and subsequent to allowing of the application, filed amended written statement. Wherein, he has taken a contention that subsequent to filing of the suit, a Panchayath was convened on 03.01.2004 before the Panchayathdars and in the presence of Sri.Guru Panditharadya Swamy of Sanehally Mutt, wherein Palupatti was reduced in writing, where under, the properties stated in paragraph No.20 of the written statement totally five in number corresponding to item Nos.2, 4, 5 and 8 to the plaint schedule were given to defendant No.11 and he was put in exclusive possession of the properties as he has developed the same by investing huge amount and hard labour. Further, defendant No.11 in the said paragraph has contended that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 partition, the properties shown in the written statement be allotted towards 1/16th share of the defendant No.11. 7. The plaintiff to prove her case examined herself as PW-1 and produced 16 documents and marked as Exs.P.1 to 16. The defendants to prove their case examined defendant No.11 as DW-1 and two witnesses as DWs-2 and 3 and produced totally 34 documents and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.34. Sri.Panditharadhya Mahaswami has been examined through a Court Commissioner as CW-1 and certificate by the Commissioner was marked as Ex.C.1. 8. Though the defendant No.11 has contended that under the Panchayath convened on 03.01.2004, the shares of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.11 and other defendants were reduced into writing in a Palupatti and they were put in exclusive possession of the properties, but the properties which were allotted in favour of defendant No.11 were in his exclusive possession even - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 earlier to the suit and he has developed the said properties by investing huge amounts. He has examined one of the Panchayatdars to the meeting as DW2, so also Sri.Panditharadhya Mahaswami before whom the panchayath was convened as CW-1 and has cross- examined plaintiff on the said meeting. Though the plaintiff has admitted the meeting, but in clear terms, she has denied that the shares were reduced in writing. 9. Heard Sri.D.C.Jagdeesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.R.Suresh and Sri.M.R.Hiremathad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5(a), 17 and 18, Sri.Rudrappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12 to 15. The counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 and counsel for other respondents are absent. 10. Sri.D.C.Jagdeesh, taking this Court to the evidence of witnesses to the Panchayath and the evidence of CW-1 (Swamiji) and the cross-examination of PW-1 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 would contend that subsequent to filing of the suit, there was a panchayath convened on 03.01.2004. In the said panchayath, it was agreed by the parties to the suit to give properties stated in paragraph No.20 of the written statement which were actually in the possession of defendant No.11 and to continue the same as he has developed the properties with hard work and investment. He relied on the evidence of Swamiji before whom meeting was convened wherein, the terms agreed by the parties were reduced into writing in a Palupatti. Though the plaintiff denied that she had agreed for the terms of the Palupatti and that she has signed the said Palupatti, nevertheless, she has admitted in the cross-examination that the Swamiji is their Ancestral God father and they are having utmost devotion and respect towards the Swamiji. This clearly shows that there was a Palupatti, as stated by CW-1. This admission by the plaintiff when read along with the evidence of CW-1 clearly shows that the properties mentioned in paragraph No.20 of the written - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 statement were agreed to be given to the appellant - defendant No.11 as he is in possession of the properties. The trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and proceeded to answer additional issue No.1 in the Negative against the appellant, which is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal and set aside the finding of the trial Court in so far as additional issue No.1. 11. Sri.Rudrappa P., supported the appellant and submitted that though they are not disputing allotting 1/16th share in favour of the plaintiff and also to other defendants, their 1/16th share be adjusted towards the properties stated in paragraph No.20 of the written statement of the defendant No.11 and the said properties be allotted in favour of the appellant and sought to allow the appeal. 12. None appeared on behalf of plaintiff and respondent No.1 and other defendants. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire trial Court record and the appeal papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:- 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in answering additional issue No.1 against the appellant? 14. Our answer to the above question is in the Affirmative for the following reasons:- It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of the suit, the suit schedule properties belonged to the family wherein the parties are having equal right. This fact is clear from the additional written statement filed by the appellant wherein he has categorically stated that subsequent to filing of the suit, on 03.01.2004, a meeting was convened in the presence of Sri.Panditharadhya Mahaswami wherein, the parties to the suit alleged to have agreed to give the properties mentioned at paragraph No.20 of the written statement to the exclusive - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 possession of defendant No.11/appellant herein as he is in possession of the properties, continuing and developed the properties with his hard work and investment. Though the plaintiff has admitted regarding the meeting convened on 03.01.2004, she has categorically denied the fact that she and other defendants have agreed to give the properties mentioned at paragraph No.20 of the written statement to the exclusive possession of defendant No.11. The alleged Palupatti wherein, the plaintiff alleged to have subscribed her signature is not produced and marked as a document before the trial Court for the reason, as the said Palupatti was written on an unstamped paper and the same is unregistered as well. In that view of the matter, the trial Court declined to mark the said document. In view of non-marking of the document, the contents of the said document are not available for perusal either by the trial Court or by this Court. 15. The trial Court while answering additional issue No.1 has given a categorical finding and reasons for not - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 marking of the alleged Palupatti, as the same was unregistered and unstamped. Though the Swamiji in whose presence the said terms were reduced in writing is examined, however, in the absence of the Palupatti, in view of settled position of law, defendant No.11 cannot be placed in a better position than prior to amendment of written statement. It is trite law that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleading and documentary backup is of no use. The oral evidence is to strengthen the execution of the document. In the absence of document, the oral evidence could not be looked into to prove the contents of the document. The trial Court at paragraph Nos.35 and 36 had recorded categorical finding for answering additional issue No.1 against the defendant No.11. The same are reproduced by us as under:- “35. Further to prove that the properties shown in para-20(a) of written statement items 1 to 5 are fallen to 11th defendant's share, he has tried to mark "Palupatti dated 3-1-04 in support of his evidence. But the Court has rejected to mark the said 'document after hearing both side arguments on the ground that - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 it is unregistered and unstamped and finally passed an order to appoint court commissioner to examine Sri Panditharadhya Swamiji instead of marking of 'Palupatti'. On perusal of oral evidence led by Sri Panditharadhya Swamiji and his document Ex.D-18 certificate remains undisputed and unchallenged. But it cannot be considered only on the basis of evidence of Sri Panditharadhya Swamiji that 11th defendant has got his share as stated in the written statement. Before that a question is also arises that whether the said "Palupatti' is accepted by all the defendants and plaintiff. Further on careful perusal of written statement of defendants, except 11th defendant remaining defendants including plaintiffs answer negative. It clearly shows that, the said "Palupatti is not accepted by all the members of the family. More over it is not a registered partition deed. Hence, 11th defendant cannot claim his share as stated in the written statement. 36. With regard to this issue is concerned, the learned counsel for the 11th defendant has much argued about trustworthiness of the testimony of Sri Swamiji and his evidence and also Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-34. Per contra the learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that, the other members of the family are not made parties in the katha proceedings which is pending before the Tahasildar, Tarikere and no notice - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 is issued to any member of the family as contemplated U/s 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Act this shows that the 11th defendant has made attempts to get katha changed in his name in respect of only the valuable family properties while this suit is pending. This fact was never made known to other family members the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to change the katha when the civil suit is pending for adjudication. According to law, the revenue authorities shall have to direct the concerned parties to approach the revenue courts after Civil suit is disposed off as contemplated in Land Revenue Act. Hence, the documents filed by the 11th defendant are not wroth considering for the proof of alleged panchayath and allotment of share to 11th defendant. Further argued about the witnesses of the 11th defendant that, they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be considered in the eye of law. On perusal of rival contentions and arguments, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff holds water and on the other side holds no water.” 16. A perusal of findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly reasoned for its conclusion to hold additional issue No.1 against the defendant No.11 in the absence of Palupatti. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 The terms of the said document cannot be assumed only on the oral evidence of witnesses said to be present at the time of meeting, wherein, the terms said to have been reduced in writing. 17. We find no infirmities with the reasons assigned by the trial Court and conclusion arrived thereon to hold additional issue No.1 against defendant No.11/appellant herein. 18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel appearing for defendant Nos.12 to 15 jointly submitted that though the plaintiff and other defendants are entitled for 1/16th share, the share of defendant No.11 be adjusted towards the properties stated at paragraph No.20 of the written statement as he is in possession of the same earlier to suit and he has developed the lands with his hard work, investing huge expenses. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 19. This submission of learned counsel for the parties is not appealing to us for the reason, they are seeking the order in their favour in an indirect way despite this Court holding that the judgment passed by the trial Court answering additional issue No.1 against the defendant No.11/appellant herein is justified. However, it is for the parties in the final decree proceedings to seek for adjustment of their share if the plaintiff and other defendants are agreeable for the same. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails as sans merit. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. The appeal filed calling in question the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009 in O.S.No.81/1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Principal JMFC at Tarikere, on additional issue No.1 against the appellant is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26082-DB RFA No. 398 of 2010 iii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, costs made easy. iv. Draw a decree accordingly. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19