- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100478 OF 2023 (PAR-) BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVAS SHETTY S/O. BADMI NARAYANA SHETTY, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MOKA VILLAGE, TQ. BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI – 583117. 2. ANANTHACHAKRAPANI SHETTY, S/O. BADMI NARAYANA SHETTY, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MOKA VILLAGE, TQ: BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI – 583117. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUDHALAKSHMI W/O. ANANTHASENA SHETTY, D/O. BADMI NARAYANA SHETTY, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MOKA VILLAGE, TQ. BALLARI. DIST: BALLARI – 583117. 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. VENKOBAIAH SHETTY, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:44:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 AGE. 79 YEARS, R/O. MOKA VILLAGE, TQ. BALLARI. DIST: BALLARI – 583117. …RESPONDENTS ------- THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.183/2014 DATED 22.10.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI AND R.A.NO.56/2018 DATED 14.12.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2022 in RA No.56/2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 in OS No.183/2014 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 Ballari, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff had two wives by name Smt. Meenakshamma and Smt. Seethamma. Smt. Meenkashamma had a son by name Venkoba Shetty (husband of the defendant No.3). The second wife of the father of the plaintiff by name Seethamma had three children i.e, defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and as such the plaintiff has made a demand for division of the property, and same was denied by the defendants despite panchayath was conducted in the presence of elderly people in the locality and as such the plaintiff has filed OS No.183/2014 before the Trial Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 4. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed separate written statement. It is the specific contention of the defendant No.1 that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the defendant No.1 having purchased the same out of his own earnings and as such denied the right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is further stated in the written statement that item Nos.3 and 4 are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The defendant No.2 has filed written statement contending that the plaint schedule properties have been granted to the tenants by the government during 1974 and the defendant No.2, got back the land by purchasing the same and therefore, the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession of the land in question. 6. The defendant No.3 has filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and sought for equitable share in the suit schedule properties. 7. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings on record formulated issues for its consideration. In order to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 establish his case the plaintiff has examined one witness as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and produced 2 documents and same were marked as Ex.D.1 and D2. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.56/2018 and same was resisted by the respondents therein. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 14.12.2022 dismissed the appeal and as such confirmed the judgment and decree passed in OS No.183/2014. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this regular second appeal. 8. Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record particularly considering the revenue entries made in the RTC extracts and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 9. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants it is not in dispute that the father of the plaintiff - Ananthasena Shetty had two wives namely Meenkashamma and Seethamma. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of second wife of the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 is the daughter-in-law of the first of wife of Badmi Narayana-Meenkashi. 10. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogical tree is reads as under: Badmi Narayana Shetty s/o. Nagappa (Poti) wife wife Meenakshamma (Poti) Seethamma (poti) Children Son Venkoba shetty 1. Son 2. Son 3. Daughter (poti) Srinivas Ananthachadrapani Sudhalakshmi Shetty Shetty 60 (years) Wife Vijayalakshmi (70 years) 11. It is also not is dispute that the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties stand in the name of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not produced any cogent material before the Trial Court to establish that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:367 RSA No. 100478 of 2023 item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is also to be noted that the defendant No.2 has accepted the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.183/2014 and has not challenged the same in appeal under Section 96 of CPC. However, preferred the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC which is impermissible under law. 12. Taking into account the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below as the item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties are the self acquired property of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that apart, the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff along with the defendants and therefore, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The appellants herein has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35